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

IMPROVEMENTS TO LOT; COMMITTEE MOTION, PROCEDURES where owner submitted motions for committee consideration; committee did not decide the motions; owner submitted amended motions; committee did not decide the amended motions.

Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Accommodation Module, ss 50, 76, 78

• [1] Amelia Traino, owner of lot 25[1] since September 2019, brings this 399-page application against the body corporate regarding the committee's failure to grant approval for works she has undertaken and others she wishes to undertake, to her lot. She says lot 25 has been unsafe and uninhabitable since September 2023.
• [2] There is a history of dispute between the parties.[2] The body corporate has sought to undertake maintenance work on the waterproofing membranes of various lots, including lot 25. The applicant has undertaken renovation work on lot 25 and wants to undertake further work, for which body corporate approval is required.

• [3] On 7 August 2024, Adjudicator Rosemann made the following orders[3]:

a) The owner of Lot 25, Amelia Traino, has breached By-law 6.1 by undertaking alterations to Lot 25 that required approval under By-law 6.1 without the approval of the Body Corporate for Rainbow Bay Resort. > > b) The owner of Lot 25, Amelia Traino, must not progress or undertake any alterations to Lot 25, without prior approval of the Body Corporate for Rainbow Bay Resort under By-law 6.1 unless: > > 1. the alteration is cosmetic, not substantive, and does not affect another lot or common property, or > 2. the alteration is cosmetic, not substantive, and cannot be seen from another lot or the common property.

• [4] Pursuant to this decision, Ms Traino submitted the following by email to the committee on 25 August 2024 (original motions):

This is a formal request for Committee approval of the following works in Unit 24, with the following

motions to be approved. Additionally find attached the Lot Improvement form to incorporate new

improvements requested as well as replacement works.

* Motion 1: Approve completion of works already commenced, as outlined in full detail in attached

a. Architect plans showing pre-existing and new planned (same as previously supplied in Dec 2023)

*Motion 2: Approval for works not yet commenced, with attached material in support:

a. architect plans previously submitted demonstrating what was previously existing (page 3-4) and new (page 1-2)

b. engineer's assessments and builders' assessments re level 7 bathroom item

I look forward to the Committee's decision and written confirmation.

Request to approve Works at Unit 24, 265 Boundary St Rainbow Bay

This is submitted by Amelia T, via email to David Anderson (malibu222@bigpond.com)

and Kellie Wright (kelliew@stratainfluence.com.au) representing the Body Corporate ("Committee") of Rainbow Bay.

Motion 1 - Approval Request for Works Already Commenced

These works were already commenced inside this lot, are not visible by other lots or common

property and do not touch / affect common property or utility infrastructure. It is requested that

the works outlined below are approved by the Committee.

• All existing toilets, sinks, wall and floor tiles have been removed.
• Replacement of tiles- walls and floor (porcelain) required.
• Replacement of cabinetry as per diagrams on Architect plans (Attachment A) to be installed.
• Replacement of shower heads and bath and toilets as outlined in the Architects plans

(Attachment A) to be installed. These are all like for like replacements.

There is no change to utility infrastructure. There is no involvement/ impact to other Lot owners or

• The wall affected by mould (including its timber frame) has been removed. (red circle on architect plans). This is not yet re- installed.
• Approval is sought to reinstall same wall with timber frame and plaster board cover in exactly the same position as previously existing mould affected one (circled in red on the architect plans attached)
• The Kitchen is to be reinstalled in the same location as old as per the Architects plans and previous floor plans attached, using existing water, sewage and power connections.

• This is outlined in green circles on architects plans, and yet to be installed. The frames for this cabinetry is already installed. The cabinetry remains to be completed and is part of these requested works.

• The timber frame to these in master bedroom (blue circle on architect plans) are already erected. The shelving to these robes remains to be completed and is part of the works.
• Walk-in robe to second bedroom- orange circle remains to be erected. Walls (partly rotten) have been removed already. New timber frame (on non-load bearing wall) with plaster remains to be erected as per orange circles on plans and is part of these works. This frame houses door and walk-in robes to bedroom.

• New tiling throughout internal apartment, with porcelain tile 600x600 to be installed.
• An acoustic underlay will be used in accordance with the acoustic engineers' recommendations in 2023 (attached, and also listed on architects plans) to meet the sound impact rating required in 2023. Exact underlay cannot be purchased until closer to time of installation and stock availability known (cannot be stored for prolonged periods).

• The spa's removal is to be completed including its associated attachments such as power cord and filter. This is not attached to common property, not visible to other Lots or common property and has no attachment to common property utilities.
• The new replacement spa is similar to Unit 22's spa. There is no requirement for drainage to be attached as per their brochure. There is no need for fixation to slab or floor. It will be positioned as per Architects plans, away from the boundary. Power supply to existing power points remains wholly inside my lot. Brochure attached.

• This will replace the pre-existing BBQ area as indicated on the Architects plans circled in yellow. This is not visible to common property or other Lots, and needs no alterations to utility infrastructure as there is existing drainage, power and water supply (the replacements will be implemented in the exact same position to previous).

Motion 2 - Approval Request for Works Not Yet Commenced

• Installation of bathroom inside Lot, inside existing room on Level7 (refer to the purple circle on the attached level 7 plans from Architect). This is not visible from anywhere and does not affect utility infrastructure as it is to be connected to utilities already in existence that supply my unit alone.
• Attachments included: builders, plumber and engineers' assessments.
• Works to be completed are as outlined per Engineer recommendations i.e. laser cut drainage holes to permit connection to existing Lot 25 utilities without affecting other lots or common property. Cutting through my slab does not affect other lots or common property.
• Post works, I am happy to provide an engineer report confirming compliance and no damage to slab.

• Removal of glass windbreak attached to boundary wall level 7 (photo below)
• There still exists a dispute regarding this structure and its ownership.
• Regardless I am requesting its removal. I will pay for this structure to be removed and any related holes remaining from its attachment points will be patched consistent with the materials / colours currently in place. The removal of this structure is in the best interests of the Resort as it will restore the look of the Eden St façade to that similar to the other penthouses and thereby increase the value of the Resort and its appeal. It will also stop the toxic paint/plastic falling to the common area BBQ area directly below it.
• Failing approval, the Committee should advise it is common property and undertake required maintenance (the Committee is therefore obligated to execute its statutory obligations as it is not in "good condition"). The mess from the structure's peeling paint/ plastic and mould is blocking the drains in this unit and failing approval or Committee maintenance, the Committee is required to provide a cleaner to maintain this said structure. I will provide access to the Committee-funded cleaner every second Wednesday between 9-11am to clean up the ongoing mess created by this deteriorating structure. The cleaner will be required to unblock the drains in the area at same time without causing any damage to my Lot. Failing approval to remove the structure or an agreed Committee-funded maintenance work, the Committee are liable for any damages this structure causes while it remains in this poor state (incl but not limited to toxic paint effects to Owner, guests and resort guests, any damages from glass/ structure falling).
• The structure is also fixated to the slab on Level 7, which the Committee is required to re-waterproof. If the removal is not permitted, any waterproofing works that require its removal will therefore be at the expense of the Committee. It is not logical or reasonable to deny the requested removal by the Lot owner, only to impose it later - to do so would be unreasonable, a nuisance and not acting in good faith.

• The contracted works are my responsibility to repair and replace now and, in the future, as they are wholly inside my Lot.
• Any changes to the resorts Insurance in proportion to works performed (maintenance and new improvements) will be borne by the Lot owner, in accordance with those made by other Lot owners.

• Guided by the Committee's recent entry notice of 30th April 2024 and the approved four month membrane works during 2023, these requested works will be undertaken in same hours of work. That is, from 7am to 4pm Monday - Friday to ensure the works are completed as quickly as possible, to minimise impact to other Lots.
• No public holiday works or weekend works will be performed (other than in an emergency where property or persons are at risk of harm).
• Works (pending approval or any further delays from the Committee) are intended to be completed by end 2024. If the works continue beyond December 2024, no noisy works will be conducted between 18th December 2024 to 10th January 2025. It is anticipated that the noisiest works (remaining removal of spa and windbreak on level 7) will be performed over 1-2 weeks and can be performed scheduled to be completed first.
• Minor works such as painting may be required in January 2025 but these do not require Committee approval due to their cosmetic nature.

• Rubbish bins such as those already used will be organised, and this is consistent with former chairperson Scott John (Unit 1) usage of the same. These bins will be used to transport / store garbage from my Lot to my car space or skip bin (if needed).
• Notice will be emailed to the Caretakers as soon as the skip bin is confirmed, with date and expected arrival time and estimated removal date listed. Skip bin will be positioned as per photo below (as per unit 21 2021 renovation), the bin will not restrict access to B2 carpark.
• While most rubbish has already been disposed of prior to this request, if a skip bin is still required (for example, for the spa and glass windbreak works), then a skip bin will be placed near the garage entrance, in the same location agreed and consistent with Unit 21 in 2021 (photo below)

• [5] On 16 September 2024, Ms Traino lodged an appeal of the adjudicator's 7 August 2024 decision with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT)[5].
• [6] On 17 October 2024, Mahoneys (lawyers for the body corporate) wrote to Redchip (lawyers for Ms Traino), saying they had sought instructions on a response to the renovation application and hoped to respond 'shortly'. Reference was made to their earlier letters of 24 October 2023 to Ms Traino and 9 August 2024 to Minter Ellison (Ms Traino's lawyers at that time). In the 9 August 2024 letter, Mahoney's relevantly stated:

20. The Body Corporate is willing to consider an application to approve the renovations proposed by your client (Renovation Application) with a view to resolving this dispute.

21. To allow the Body Corporate to consider the Renovation Application, please:

(b) resubmit the plans and specification of the renovations (while your client has indicated

that the plans have already been submitted, the Body Corporate requests that these

are resubmitted to ensure that the correct version is being considered); and

(c) address the concerns raised by the Body Corporate with respect to the renovations

22. Attached are copies of our correspondence dated 24 October 2023 which summarises the

• [7] On 22 October 2024, Redchip wrote to Mahoneys, requesting the committee's response to the motions by 4pm on 25 October 2024.
• [8] On 31 October 2024 Mahoney's wrote to Redchip:

a) Stating that the committee was willing to consider the motions on the conditions included within enclosed motions (body corporate motions); and > > b) Providing a copy of the body corporate's motions.

a) by committee resolution - the renovations described within correspondence dated 24 August 2024 and the Arco Design Drawings dated 27 November 2023 (Committee Motion), with the exception of the replacement of the windscreen on the boundary of the balcony and common property (Windscreen Replacement); and

b) by ordinary resolution the Windscreen Replacement, as an improvement to common property which exceeds $3,000 must be authorised by ordinary resolution pursuant to section 177 of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020 (Accommodation Module).

• [9] Redchip responded on 13 November 2024, attaching proposed amendments to the body corporate's motions (amended motions).
• [10] The body corporate was asked to respond, by 15 November 2024, that it was agreeable to the amended motions and advise a date on which the amended motions would be considered.
• [11] By 16 November 2024, the committee and body corporate had not decided the original motions, the body corporate motions or the amended motions.
• [12] On 21 November 2024, Redchip emailed Mahoneys asking for a response to their letter of 13 November 2024 by 5pm 22 November 2024. No response was received.
• [13] On 18 December 2024, Redchip wrote to Mahoneys, foreshadowing this application and again requested that Mahoneys confirm that the committee will approve the amended motions.
• [14] On 19 December 2024, Mahoneys wrote to Redchip raising queries with the amended motions, being generally concerns as to:

a) the nature of the Roof Works (i.e. that the Roof Works ought to be included in the amended motions as a 'Renovation') and their cost; > > b) the body corporate's requirement that the applicant's project manager comply with reasonable directions given by the body corporate's project managers with respect to the membrane works (the Requirement); and > > c) detail in respect of the Window Maintenance.

• [15] Ms Traino was invited to submit a revised motion to address the body corporate's concerns by 13 January 2025. If a revised motion was not submitted, Mahoneys said the body corporate intended to consider, as a same issue motion, the body corporate motions and the amended motions.
• [16] Redchip's letter of 20 December 2024 addressed the body corporate's concerns to the following effect:

a) the Roof Works: > > 1. are a consequence of the balance of the Membrane Works; and > 2. are, accordingly, not appropriately categorised as 'Renovations' in the Amended Motions; > > b) the Requirement is impractical, a deterrent to any contractor who is requested to complete the subject works (i.e. having multiple decision makers) and of little utility where Membrane Works must be completed pursuant to plan in any event; > > c) the body corporate should be aware that the applicant sought the body corporate's approval to complete window works in around July 2021, with provision of photographs displaying the subject windows and three quotes, which approval was denied.

• [17] Redchip's letter dated 20 December 2024 also expressed the applicant's willingness to resolve the matter without filing this application, providing that:

a) the applicant was willing to attain and provide to the committee/body corporate a quote for the Roof Works by 14 January 2025, subject to contractor availability; > > b) provided the cost of the Roof Works are within the committee spending limit, they can be authorised by a committee resolution; > > c) the applicant was otherwise content for the Roof Works to be authorised by ordinary resolution, should the costs of those works exceed the committee spending limit; and > > d) the applicant would submit a modified motion in respect of the Roof Works, reflecting the above, on attaining the quote mentioned above;

subject to the committee/body corporate confirming by 5:00pm, 7 January 2025 that:

e) it will hold a general meeting to resolve as to the Roof Works by Friday, 24 January 2025;

f) the committee will recommend the approval of the Roof Works at the general meeting mentioned above, on the presumption that the quote for those works is fair and reasonable; and

g) the committee would decide the balance of the Amended Motions, by Friday, 10 January 2025.

• [18] By 14 January 2025, the committee/body corporate had not responded to the matters raised in Redchip's letter dated 20 December 2024.
• [19] On 14 January 2025, Redchip sent an email to Mahoneys, affording the committee/body corporate until 9:00am on 16 January 2025 to:

a) confirm that it will hold a general meeting to resolve as to the Roof Works by Friday, 7 February 2025; > > b) confirm that the committee will recommend the approval of the Roof Works at the general meeting mentioned above, on the presumption that the quote for those works is fair and reasonable; and > > c) decide the balance of the works the subject of the amended motions other than the roof works (ie the Balance Amended Motions).

• [20] The committee/body corporate had not responded to Redchip's correspondence of 14 January 2025 when this application was lodged on 16 January 2025, nor had it held its annual general meeting (AGM) for the 2023-2024 financial year, which ended on 31 July 2024.
• [21] Ms Traino argues in circumstances:

a) where the motions contained sufficient information and detail to enable the committee to properly consider the subject works; > > b) where the committee did not seek: > > 1. further information in respect of the motions; or > 2. further time to consider the motions;

1. where the committee did not respond or seek further information in respect of the Amended Motions until further prompted by Redchip over 16 weeks after the motions were originally proposed;

d) the applicant has sufficiently addressed the Remaining Concerns; > > e) the committee has not promptly and actively engaged with the applicant's requests for approval

the committee acted unreasonably in the deemed refusal to pass the Motions or the Amended Motions or the balance of the Amended Motions.

• [22] Ms Traino argues the body corporate has failed to act reasonably by failing to decide her motions, or seek further information, or further time to consider them, within 12 weeks of her submitting them. She seeks orders that her motions, or some of them, or variations of them, be deemed to have been approved by the body corporate.

• [23] Rainbow Bay Resort community titles scheme 5907 (Rainbow Bay Resort) was established in July 1989 with the registration of building units plan 9413 (and building units plan 12345, re-subdividing lot 23 into lots 24 and 25 in December 1992). It is a 24-lot scheme in Coolangatta. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Accommodation Module applies.
• [24] Lot 25 (unit 24) is predominantly located on levels I and J (known as levels 6 and 7) of the building.
• [25] Submissions in response to the application were sought from the committee and all owners. No submissions were received. I requested further information from both parties, as detailed below.

• [26] On 7 May 2025, I asked the body corporate whether it (or its lawyers) responded to the email dated 14 January 2025 from Redchip Lawyers and if so, to provide a copy. I also asked whether any committee or general meetings had been held since August 2024 and if so, to provide a copy of the minutes.
• [27] After not receiving any response, the same information was requested by email on 26 May 2025. After still not receiving any response, a dispute resolution coordinator phoned the body corporate manager on 11 June 2025 enquiring about a response to the emails. It appears the emails had gone to spam. A response was provided on 11 June 2025, attaching a response to the correspondence of 20 December 2024 by Mahoneys, dated 9 May 2025, to Redchip Lawyers which provided as follows:

Rainbow Bay Resort CTS 5907 - improvement request

1. We refer to your correspondence dated 20 December 2024 (Your Correspondence) and the motions submitted by your client on 13 November 2024 to authorise improvements to your client's lot (Your Motions).
2. Your Correspondence fails to substantively address the concerns raised by the Body Corporate with respect to Your Motions in its correspondence dated 19 December 2024.
3. In particular:

a) Your client has failed to provide costs and details of the design of the windows sought to be replaced within the lot. Your client has submitted a quotation from GC Window Repairs dated 15 January 2024, however it: > > 1. is largely outdated; > 2. does not set out the design or specification of the windows; and > 3. includes a variety of other repair work, such that it is not clear which work your client expects the Body Corporate to approve. > > b) Your client has failed to provide costs for the roof drainage works proposed to be carried out, or current expert building advice to confirm that the work is required to be carried out by the Body Corporate as part of its maintenance obligations pursuant to the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020. > > c) Your client has failed to accept the requirement that your client's project manager comply with reasonable directions given by the Body Corporate's project manager with respect to the membrane works (Supervision Requirement). (Outstanding Concerns).

4. The Body Corporate is not in a position to reasonably consider the window and roof drainage works, until such time that your client addresses the Outstanding Concerns.
5. The Body Corporate is entitled to be fully and fairly informed with respect to the work (including costs and design), particularly in circumstances where your client expects the Body Corporate to meet the costs of the window and roof drainage work.
6. In Iluka Court [2016] QBCCMCmr 92 the adjudicator provides:

However, I am not convinced it would be unreasonable for the body corporate to require for example: details about proposed work; plans of the work on common property; and evidence of any relevant approvals including from the local authority. It should be noted that the body corporate must keep a register of authorisations affecting common property recording for example, a description of the affected part of common property...

An owner is entitled to expect to be fully and fairly informed with respect to the subject matter of a motion.

1. In an effort to resolve the dispute, the Body Corporate committee intends to consider the attached motion to authorise improvements to your client's lot (Proposed Motion).
2. The Proposed Motion largely reflects Your Motions, however:

a) The Proposed Motion does not authorise the window or roof drainage work. The Body Corporate is willing to consider the authorisation of the window or roof drainage work at a later date, once your client addresses the Outstanding Concerns. > > b) The Proposed Motion includes the Supervision Requirement. The Body Corporate is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the roofing membrane, and it is reasonable for the Body Corporate to retain control over the manner in which the membrane works are performed. > > c) The Proposed Motion is subject to your client withdrawing QCAT appeal proceeding APL 278-24 within 14 days' from the date that the Body Corporate passes the resolution (Application).

3. Any claim made by your client that the Body Corporate has acted unreasonably is bound to fail in circumstances where:

a) the Proposed Motion authorises the vast majority of the improvements proposed to your client's lot; and > > b) the Body Corporate has indicated a willingness to authorise the balance of any improvement works, such as the window or roof drainage work, once your client addresses the Outstanding Concerns.

4. Please confirm by no later than Friday, 16 May 2025, that your client is agreeable to the Proposed Motion and will withdraw the Application once it is approved.

• [28] A further letter, dated 12 May 2025, was sent by Mahoney's directly to the applicant:

1. On 13 November 2024 you submitted motions for consideration by the Body corporate for Rainbow Bay Resort CTS 5907.
2. On 9 May 2025 our firm sent correspondence to the solicitors acting for you other than in this proceeding which:

a) confirmed the Body corporate's acceptance of the majority of the motions submitted by you, except for: > > 1. window and roof drainage work (Additional Works); and > 2. is subject to you withdrawing the QCAT Appeal proceeding within 14 days' from the date that the resolution is passed; > > b) set out the terms of a motion (Proposed Motion) which the committee was willing to consider in committee meeting.

3. The Proposed Motion does not address the Additional Works for the reasons set out in our earlier correspondence. Once the concerns raised in that correspondence have been addressed our client's committee is willing to consider a motion to address the Additional Works as well.
4. We understand that your main concern throughout the QCAT proceeding has been that the Body corporate has yet to approve the works to be carried out to your lot.
5. The Body corporate is, consistent with our correspondence dated 9 May 2025, willing to consider the proposed motion and work with you to resolve the outstanding issues set out in our correspondence dated 9 May 2025.

1. The resolution of the Appeal will likely be expensive and time consuming. It is not lost on the Body corporate that, no matter the outcome of the proceeding, you will be contributing (by your levies) to the costs of the Body corporate's defence of the Appeal.
2. If the remaining issues can be resolved by agreement the Appeal will be rendered otiose - there would be no benefit to conducting a final hearing of the issues.
3. If our client is forced to prepare a response to the Appeal, then our client will incur costs of more than $5,000. Our client's costs will be sought against you in the event that the Appeal fails.
4. To enable you time to obtain legal advice regarding our correspondence dated 9 May 2025, we propose that the parties consent to directions:

a) vacating the current directions; and > > b) requiring that the Body corporate file its response submissions by 16 June 2025.

a) allow the committee meeting to occur and further discussions regarding the Outstanding Issues; and > > b) avoid unnecessary expenditure on the part of the Body corporate.

6. Please confirm whether you are agreeable to the above proposal - if you are, we will prepare an appropriate application for orders by consent.
7. We look forward to receiving your response.

• [29] On 18 June 2025 I again requested the body corporate to provide copies of minutes of any meetings (committee or general) held since August 2024. On 18 June 2025 I was provided with minutes of a budget committee meeting held on 19 August 2024 and an AGM held on 27 May 2025.
• [30] The minutes of the committee budget meeting held on 19 August 2024 reveal that the committee intended to include on the AGM agenda as committee motions, motions in relation to proposed works for Lot 25 (unit 24) - once provided by lawyer. The date for the AGM was to be confirmed once the motions from the lawyer were ready for inclusion.
• [31] The minutes of the AGM, ultimately held on 27 May 2025, reveal that no motions (either from the applicant or committee) regarding the proposed works for Lot 25 were considered.
• [32] On 18 June 2025, I emailed the applicant asking if she or her lawyers had responded to Mahoney's letters of 9 and/or 12 May 2025. She responded on 23 June 2025 advising that she did not respond formally to Mahoney's letters of 9 and 12 May 2025. She says her position regarding the correspondence has previously been set out in her application. In her view, the letters rehashed previously rejected positions, did not constitute genuine offers but were coercive in nature (imposed a condition that she withdraw her QCAT appeal). As no genuine attempt to resolve the dispute has been made (no new proposal) and more than 6 weeks have passed without her acceptance, she relies on the established principle that a lack of response constitutes a refusal. She requests that the matter now proceed to determination without further delay.
• [33] In an email to this office on 13 May 2025, the applicant says that the appeal concerns the same works the body corporate has now refused and is central to this matter. She says for the body corporate to withhold necessary approvals unless she relinquishes her right to appeal is both coercive and unreasonable.

Motions submitted to committee on 25 August 2024 (original motions)

• [34] Ms Traino submitted a formal request by email on 25 August 2024 for committee approval of certain works in Unit 24 (lot 25) by submitting 2 motions for committee decision: Motion 1 requested approval for works already commenced inside the lot that she said were not visible by other lots or common property and did not affect common property. It included work in the bathrooms and laundry, kitchen, kitchen cabinetry/pantry, walk-in robes, flooring, replacement of a spa and the BBQ area. Motion 2 requested approval for works not yet commenced, including the installation of an additional bathroom and removal of a glass windbreak attached to the boundary wall of level 7.
• [35] The legislation imposes timeframes on a committee to consider motions submitted to it. Generally, committee motions must be decided as soon as reasonably practicable but within 6 weeks of being submitted.[6] If a committee needs more time, it can give the submitter a notice saying that and then decide the motion in no more than a further 6 weeks.[7] If a committee does not decide a motion in those timeframes, it is taken not to have agreed to the motion.[8]
• [36] Mahoneys wrote to Redchip lawyers on 17 October 2024, saying they had sought instructions on a response to the renovation application and hoped to respond 'shortly'. It wasn't until 31 October 2024 that Mahoney's responded substantively to Redchip, proposing amendments to Ms Traino's motions, which the body corporate was prepared to consider.
• [37] The committee failed to comply with section 50(3) of the Accommodation Module by failing to decide the motions submitted on 25 August 2024, or requesting more time to decide those motions, within 6 weeks. Instead, the committee, after more than 6 weeks had passed, suggested amended motions which it proposed to decide at committee level (essentially approving the applicant's motions, with the exception of the windscreen removal, subject to conditions (18 of them) and proposed that the windscreen (the cost of which it expected to be greater than $3,000) be decided in general meeting, which it requested the applicant to fund. However, there is no record of any decision-making (including by instructing lawyers to respond to Redchip's correspondence) by the committee.
• [38] By failing to consider Ms Traino's original motions, or request more time to decide the motions, within 6 weeks, Ms Traino's original motions are taken to be not agreed to.[9]
• [39] Ms Traino seeks orders that the committee and body corporate have acted unreasonably in not approving the motions; that the committee and body corporate are deemed to have approved the motions, or a variation of the motions, on conditions the adjudicator considers appropriate.
• [40] I do not consider it appropriate to make such orders in circumstances where Ms Traino's arguments about the body corporate's unreasonableness appear directed mostly at the committee's failure to decide the motions, or request further information, within 6 weeks. The legislation provides that the motions are taken to be not agreed to in that situation. Instead of challenging that refusal with specific arguments as to why it may have been unreasonable for the body corporate to have refused approval, Ms Traino submitted amended motions. In my view, after the body corporate was deemed to have not agreed to the original motions, and the applicant submitted amended motions, it is only the amended motions that have any continuing relevance.

Motions submitted on 13 November 2024 (amended motions)

• [41] Ms Traino submitted amended motions on 13 November 2024. This was done via Redchip tracking proposed amendments to the body corporate's 31 October 2024 proposed motions. Redchip stated that the amended motions reflected:

a) further particularisation of the Membrane Works; > > b) the inclusion of rectification works for: > > 1. the roof drainage system; and > 2. the membrane for the Lot 25 balcony depicted in Drawing 04 of the Arco Design Drawings (level 6 balcony)

1. a minor amendment to paragraph 9 of Motion 1, as paragraph 9 as previously drafted in the Motions permitted too much ambiguity, particularly in circumstances where our client bears the responsibility for the completion of the relevant works;

d) inclusion of the Windscreen Replacement as a motion to be approved by committee resolution, as the new glass windscreen the subject of that motion will likely have an installed value of less than $3,000.00; and

e) inclusion of the Window Maintenance as a motion to be approved by committee resolution on similar terms to the balance of the Amended Motions.

• [42] On 19 December 2024 (this time within 6 weeks), Mahoneys wrote to Redchip raising queries with the amended motions. The body corporate concerns were summarised in a table as follows:

carry out roof drainage works set out on the Flux Hydraulic Services Roof Drainage Rectification

Pursuant to section 177 of the Body Corporate and

In Iluka Court [2016] QBCCMCmr 92 the

affecting common property recording for example, a description of the affected part of common property...

An owner is entitled to expect to be fully and fairly

• [43] The body corporate was stated to have requested that the amended motion include a condition that Ms Traino would withdraw the QCAT appeal proceeding APL 278-24, if the amended motion is approved. The body corporate's position was stated to be that, if Ms Traino's improvements are ultimately approved, the proceeding offers little utility and would generate unnecessary costs for the body corporate.
• [44] Ms Traino was invited to submit a revised motion to address the body corporate's concerns by 13 January 2025. If a revised motion was not submitted, Mahoneys said the body corporate intended to consider, as a same issue motion, the body corporate motions and the amended motions.
• [45] Redchip's letter of 20 December 2024 stated Ms Traino's position that the roof drainage rectification works the subject of the amended motions (Roof Works) were a consequence of the balance of the membrane works and were therefore not appropriately categorised as 'renovations' in the amended motions; the requirement that Ms Traino's project manager comply with the reasonable directions given by the body corporate's project manager with respect to the membrane works was stated to be impractical, a deterrent to any contractor who is requested to complete the subject works and of little utility where membrane works must be completed pursuant to plan in any event; regarding the window works, it was noted that Ms Traino had previously sought body corporate approval to complete window works in around July 2021, providing photographs displaying the subject windows to the attached effect and 3 quotes, which approval was denied. A quote from January 2024 in respect of the window maintenance was supplied.
• [46] Ms Traino offered to supply a quote for the Roof Works and a modified motion in that regard, provided the body corporate agreed to hold a general meeting to resolve as to the Roof Works (if quoted at over $3,000) by 24 January 2025, and the committee decide the balance of the Amended Motions by 10 January 2025.
• [47] Ms Traino's consideration of her QCAT appeal was stated to depend on the outcome of the general meeting and committee decision regarding the amended motions.
• [48] The committee/body corporate had not responded to Redchip's correspondence of 14 January 2025 when this application was lodged on 16 January 2025, nor had it held its AGM for the 2023-2024 financial year, which ended on 31 July 2024.
• [49] The body corporate did not make a submission in response to this application. There is no explanation for why it did not do as it said it was going to in its letter of 19 December 2024: call a general meeting to consider, as a group of same issues motion, the body corporate motions and the amended motions. It appears from the minutes of the budget committee meeting in August 2024 that it was waiting to hold its AGM for motions concerning the works to lot 25 to be ready to be considered. And yet there was no further correspondence from the body corporate (via Mahoneys) until after I requested further information from the body corporate on 7 May 2025, nor any record of any committee or general meetings being held, other than the AGM of 27 May 2025.
• [50] Given section 50(7) of the Accommodation Module, and the lapse of time since the amended motions were submitted on 13 November 2024, they are taken to be not agreed to.
• [51] Ms Traino seeks orders that the committee and body corporate have acted unreasonably in not approving the amended motions; that the committee and body corporate are deemed to have approved the amended motions, or a variation of those motions, on conditions the adjudicator considers appropriate (or, in the alternative, the amended motions other than the Roof Works).
• [52] Redchip says the motions, in summary:

a) Requested the body corporate's approval for works already commenced by the applicant, providing the specifics of those works and identifying those works in the attachments to the Motions; > > b) Requested the body corporate's approval for works not yet commenced by the applicant, providing the specifics of those works and identifying those works in the attachments to the Motions; > > c) Attached relevant design plans and other supporting material, including: > > 1. Architect's plans; > 2. Engineer's reports; > 3. A TTM Consulting acoustic report for underlay; > 4. A builder's report; > 5. A G001707 Compliance Certificate; > 6. A lot application form; and > 7. A new spa brochure; > > d) Addressed insurances for the works the subject of the Motions; > > e) Addressed the hours during which the works the subject of the Motions would be concluded; and > > f) Addressed the process by which rubbish from the works the subject of the Motions would be removed from Lot 25.

• [53] Given the above, the amended motions contained sufficient information and detail to enable the committee and body corporate to properly consider the subject works.
• [54] Mahoney's correspondence to Redchip dated 31 October 2024 did not stipulate that the Motions contained insufficient information and, instead:

a) Expressed the body corporate's willingness to consider the works the subject of the Motions on certain conditions; and > > b) Proposed the body corporate motions.

a) Proposed the body corporate's authorisation, by committee resolution, of the renovations described in the Motions, 'with the exception of the replacement of the windscreen on the boundary of the balcony and common property' (windscreen replacement); and > > b) Proposed authorisation, by ordinary resolution, of the windscreen replacement (on the basis that an 'improvement to common property which exceeds $3,000 must be authorised by an ordinary resolution pursuant to section 177 of the Accommodation Module.

• [56] The amended motions mostly adopted the substance of the body corporate motions and included amendments to the following effect:

a) Further particularisation of the membrane works (as defined in the body corporate motions); > > b) The inclusion of rectification works for: > > 1. The roof drainage system; and > 2. The membrane for the Lot 25 balcony depicted in Drawing 04 of the Arco Design Drawings (level 6 balcony) (as attached to the amended motions);

1. A minor amendment to paragraph 9 of Motion 1, as paragraph 9 as previously drafted in the body corporate motions permitted ambiguity, particularly in circumstances where the applicant was to bear the responsibility for the completion of the relevant works and ensure that only one project manager was responsible for the direction and performance of the subject works;

d) Inclusion of the Windscreen Replacement as a motion to be approved by committee resolution, as the new glass windscreen the subject of that motion would likely have an installed value of less than $3,000; and > > e) Inclusion of the Window Maintenance (as defined in the Amended Motions) as a motion to be approved by committee resolution on similar terms to the balance of the Amended Motions.

• [57] The applicant submits that, where the scheme is subdivided by a BFP, the body corporate is responsible for:

a) the roof drainage system rectification works the subject of Amended Motions, pursuant to section 170(2)(b)(ii) of the Accommodation Module; > > b) the works effecting repair of the membrane for the Lot 25 balcony depicted in Drawing 04 of the Arco Design Drawings and the subject of the Amended Motions, pursuant to section 170(2)(a)(iii) of the Accommodation Module; > > c) the balance of the Membrane Works the subject of the Amended Motions, pursuant to section 170(2)(a)(iii) of the Accommodation Module; and > > d) the Window Maintenance the subject of the Amended Motions, pursuant > > a) to section 170(2)(a)(ii) of the Accommodation Module.

• [58] Mahoneys correspondence to Redchip of 19 December 2024 raised 3 of the body corporate's concerns with the amended motions (remaining concerns), being generally concerns as to:

a) The nature of the Roof Works (ie that the Roof Works ought to be included in the Amended Motions as a 'renovation') and their cost; > > b) The body corporate's requirement that the applicant's project manager comply with reasonable directions given by the body corporate's project managers with respect to the membrane works; and > > c) Detail in respect of the Window Maintenance.

• [59] Redchip's letter of 20 December 2024 addressed the remaining concerns to the following effect:

a) The Roof Works: > > 1. Are a consequence of the balance of the Membrane Works; and > 2. Are, accordingly, not appropriately categorised as 'renovations' in the Amended Motions; > > b) The requirement regarding project management is impractical, a deterrent to any contractor who is requested to complete the subject works (ie having multiple decision makers) and of little utility where Membrane Works must be completed pursuant to plan in any event; > > c) The body corporate should be aware that the applicant sought the body corporate's approval to complete window works in around July 2021, with provision of photographs displaying the subject windows and 3 quotes, which approval was denied.

• [60] Redchip's letter also expressed the applicant's willingness obtain and provide a quote for the Roof Works, subject to contractor availability and submit a modified motion in respect of the Roof Works, if quoted at under $3,000 for committee approval and if over, was content for them to be authorised by ordinary resolution, subject to the body corporate confirming it would hold a general meeting to resolve the Roof Works and that the committee would decide the balance of the Amended Motions, by a certain date.
• [61] The applicant says, in circumstances where:

a) the applicant has sufficiently addressed the Remaining Concerns; > > b) the Committee has not promptly and actively engaged with the applicant's requests for approval;

the Committee acted unreasonably in the deemed refusal to pass the Amended Motions or the Amended Motions, other than the roof works.

• [62] The Act requires the body corporate and committee to act reasonably in carrying out its legislative functions, including in making, or not making, a decision.[10] A decision of the committee is a decision of the body corporate.[11]
• [63] In her decision, Adjudicator Rosemann said, at [34]:

The test for whether a body corporate decision is reasonable is objective. It is a question of fact, having regard to all the circumstances. Reasonable decision-making "...involves an evaluation of the known facts, circumstances and considerations that tend to have a rational bearing on the issue..." and "...requires that all relevant matters are taken into consideration and irrelevant ones are left out". The person challenging a decision bears the onus of proof that the body corporate failed to act reasonably.;

As detailed above, a body corporate and its committee must act reasonably when making or not making decisions. Accordingly, whether the default by-laws in the Act or by-laws recorded in a CMS apply, a body corporate and its committee is required to act reasonably in deciding requests for approval under a by-law. Approval cannot be unreasonably refused. Accordingly, that statutory obligation imposes the objective standard.'

• [64] The Adjudicator further stated, at [167] and [168]:

'The body corporate for its part must act reasonably, including promptly, in considering any request and deciding to impose conditions on approval. In doing so, it should have particular regard to the need for works to maintain the lot in good condition and whether there could be any impact from the alterations on any other lot or common property. It seems likely that most of the alterations will not be visible from outside the lot or impact on other lots or common property, such that there would be no reasonable basis to refuse approval.

I also do not consider it appropriate in the circumstances to require the respondent to reinstate the lot in its original condition if the proposed works are not approved. I consider that is simply not feasible now. Rather, the parties should be working towards the approval of works to return the lot to a habitable condition.'

• [65] Adjudicator Rosemann said in her reasons for decision that the onus was on the respondent (Ms Traino) to submit a committee or general meeting motion, or otherwise expressly request approval, and specify more precisely what she sought approval for.[12] Further[13]:

The onus rests with the respondent to ensure she provides sufficient clear detail of the works to enable the body corporate to properly consider their nature and impact. Simply referring to previous documentation would not be sufficient. The respondent could consider applying separately (whether at the same time or not) for separate components of the proposed works so that any dispute about the approval of one component would not unnecessarily impede the approval or implementation of uncontroversial components.

• [66] I do not consider it just and equitable in the circumstances to deem any of the amended motions submitted on 13 November 2024, or any variation of them, approved by the body corporate.
• [67] Whilst the legislation does not set out how to word motions for committee or general meeting decision, some guidance is provided on our website, including that they be clear and concise.
• [68] The 3 amended 'motions' the applicant submitted on 13 November 2024 are convoluted and voluminous (spanning 57 pages of material, including attachments). It is difficult to decipher from the material before me, what specifically the applicant seeks approval for, which of these works the committee has no objection to and no reasonable basis to not approve, and which works the parties have been unable to agree on in terms of scope, responsibility (applicant or body corporate) and cost (as it appears current quotes have not been provided for the windscreen removal, roof drainage works, or window maintenance). From the amended motions (submitted as tracked changes made to the body corporate's motions) by Redchip in its letter of 13 November 2024, it appears there is still dispute between the parties concerning certain elements of the membrane works (including aspects of the project management), roof drainage works, the windscreen replacement and window maintenance. The parties appear to agree to conditional approval of the other items for which approval was requested.
• [69] However, the applicant does not appear to have separately sought approval for items the committee indicated it was willing to approve (subject to conditions the applicant appeared willing to accept) and at no stage has she submitted any of the motions to be considered at a general meeting.
• [70] Owners are entitled to submit general meeting motions at any time.[14] The body corporate must include owner motions on the agenda of the next general meeting on which it is practicable to include the motion[15], although a motion submitted by an owner may only be included on the agenda for an AGM only if the secretary receives the motion before the end of the body corporate's financial year immediately preceding the meeting[16].
• [71] I am of the view that the applicant's motions (preferably a clearer, more concise version) should be put to the body corporate in general meeting. This is because there is no record of the committee having even considered the motions (only the letters from the body corporate's lawyers) and no submissions were received in response to this application. In such circumstances, I do not consider it just and equitable to simply make orders deeming Ms Traino's amended motions, or variations of them, or some of them, to have been approved by the body corporate. In any case, I consider the amended motions to be so convoluted and voluminous, that I am simply unable to do so. I must dismiss the application for this reason.
• [72] Nonetheless, I consider the subject matters of the motions are issues the body corporate must turn its mind to.
• [73] But the onus is on the applicant to submit motions she wants the body corporate to consider. In my view, she must do better at articulating exactly what it is she wants the body corporate to approve. Guidance on drafting and submitting motions (including good and bad examples) is available from our website.
• [74] The committee can also submit any motions it wants to have considered. This obviates the need for the applicant and the body corporate to agree on the form and content of motions to be considered: something that has proved impossible to achieve thus far, despite almost 12 months of start/stop negotiations with lawyers involved.
• [75] The voting paper, for each motion submitted by an owner, must state the motion in the form in which it is submitted without amendment.[17] Owners can add extra information to support their motion in an explanatory note, which must be no longer than 300 words. The committee must include a schedule of explanatory notes with the meeting notice. The committee can also include its own explanatory note about a motion submitted by an owner. If 2 or more motions proposing alternative ways of dealing with the same issue are submitted, the committee must list the original motions as a group of motions dealing with the same issue on the voting paper.[18]
• [76] If the committee does not support a motion for any reason, it could recommend owners vote against the motion. In certain circumstances the person chairing a meeting can rule a motion out of order. But the committee cannot not simply refuse to put any motions that it does not support, or does not consider are in a satisfactory form, to owners.
• [77] I reiterate other comments already made by adjudicator Rosemann that the onus rests with Ms Traino to ensure she provides sufficient clear detail of the works to enable the body corporate to properly consider their nature and impact. She could consider applying separately for separate components of the proposed works so that any dispute about the approval of one component would not unnecessarily impede the approval or implementation of uncontroversial components.
• [78] The body corporate for its part must act reasonably in considering any request. In doing so, it should have particular regard to the need for works to maintain the lot in good condition and whether there could be any impact from the alterations on any other lot or common property. It seems likely that most of the alterations will not be visible from outside the lot or impact on other lots or common property, such that there would be no reasonable basis to refuse approval.
• [79] I add that it would not be objectively reasonable for the body corporate to make its approval of Ms Traino's motions conditional on her withdrawing the QCAT proceeding.

• [80] Unfortunately, this dispute is not much further progressed than in August last year. The applicant has submitted motions for the committee's consideration. The committee, through its lawyers (although with no evidence of any committee instructions to this effect) raised concerns with some aspects of the motions. The applicant submitted amended motions to the committee, which it appears the committee still has some concerns with. Rather than putting both sets of motions to owners in general meeting as a group of same issues motions as foreshadowed by the body corporate's lawyers, the body corporate has not considered either the applicant's or the committee's proposed motions, with the parties appearing to insist that they agree on the motions to be put before owners and/or the committee; something that has thus far proved impossible.
• [81] It is now time for both parties to finalise any motions they want the body corporate to consider and for all motions to be put before owners at the next general meeting at which it is practicable to do so. Any motions put before owners should be clear and concise. I note that the body corporate's end of financial year is 31 July.

[2] See Rainbow Bay Resort [2022] QBCCMCmr 249, Rainbow Bay Resort [2022] QBCCMCmr 307, Rainbow Bay Resort [2023] QBCCMCmr 504; Rainbow Bay Resort [2024] QBCCMCmr 189; Rainbow Bay Resort [2024] QBCCMCmr 287

[6] Section 50(3)(a), Accommodation Module

[7] Section 50(3)(b), Accommodation Module

[9] Section 50(7)(a), Accommodation Module

[12] Rainbow Bay Resort [2024] 287@ [153]

[13] Rainbow Bay Resort [2024] 287@ [166]

[14] Section 76(1), Accommodation Module

[15] Section 76(5), Accommodation Module

[16] Section 76(6), Accommodation Module

[17] Section 78(6)(a), Accommodation Module

[18] Section 79(1)(2), Accommodation Module