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

INTERIM ORDER - whether an interim order is warranted.

1. The application for interim orders is dismissed.

• [1] Riverlands Noosa is described as an 'over 50s' complex comprising 137 lots and common property. This application relates to the engagement of the scheme's village manager.
• [2] Aussie Holidays & Resorts Pty Ltd (Aussie Holidays) had an agreement with the body corporate for the period from 27 November 2023 to 26 November 2025 for the provision of caretaking services as the village manager for the scheme.
• [3] On 24 November 2025, the committee decided to engage Aussie Holidays for a further 2 months beyond the expiry of the agreement. The applicant lot owner objects to this decision, arguing that it was unlawfully made and seeks an order that the committee resolution be invalidated.
• [4] An interim order is also sought to restrain the body corporate from making any payment to Aussie Holidays and from taking any steps to implement the purported contract extension pending determination of the application.
• [5] The only issue at this time is whether an interim order is warranted.

• [6] I am satisfied that this matter falls within the legislative dispute resolution provisions.[1] An adjudicator may make an order to resolve a dispute between a lot owner and the body corporate regarding a claimed contravention of the Act or the community management statement (CMS); or the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under the Act or CMS.[2] Further, an adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[3]
• [7] The Commissioner has referred the application to me to decide whether an interim order is warranted. There is no statutory requirement to provide notice of the application or to give affected parties an opportunity to make submissions before an interim order is decided.[4] In the circumstances, I gave the committee and Aussie Holidays a short period to respond to the interim order application.

• [8] The applicant seeks an order for the committee resolution of 24 November 2025 that approved the contract extension with Peta and David Woods (Aussie Holidays' representatives) to be declared invalid. The minutes of the meeting record that the committee resolved to "engage the Woods for a further two months on the original pay rate and hours previously offered and live in the unit." I understand this to be the disputed resolution.
• [9] The applicant submits that the resolution is invalid because:
  1. It was influenced by personal bias, favouritism and conduct contrary to the code of conduct.
  2. The committee had acknowledged it was in a state of "disarray" and unable to effectively manage its responsibilities. Despite this, it proceeded to make a significant financial and contractual decision without proper authority.
  3. The chairperson has a self-declared long standing friendship with the village manager's representatives and had previously acknowledged the need to recuse himself from related matters. In this instance, he failed to disclose his conflict of interest and abstain from voting.
  4. The committee failed to act reasonably, impartially or in good faith as required by the Act.
  5. Several committee members expressed concerns about the capacity of one of the village manager's representatives to perform the required duties, indicating that the extension of contract was not based on an objective assessment of performance or community needs, but demonstrates personal bias and self-interest in making the decision.
  6. The committee was aware that granting the extension would impose an additional cost of approximately $16,500 at a time when many owners were experiencing financial hardship. Despite this, the committee proceeded with the extension and failed to consider the reasonableness of imposing avoidable costs on the scheme.
  7. There is inconsistency between the remuneration terms that the village manager is continuing under, and the terms for the new position that is being offered to replace them. This may expose the body corporate to potential wage discrimination or employment related claims.
  8. Committee meeting minutes demonstrate improper process.
• [10] In response, the body corporate submits that the applicant bears the onus of proof and that he has failed to identify any relevant statutory basis for his allegations, nor has he provided sufficient evidence demonstrating a contravention. Specifically, the body corporate says:
  1. At the expiry of the agreement, the body corporate requested the village manager to continue carrying out the duties of the agreement for a period of 2 months (the Interim Arrangement), so the body corporate can fulfil its obligation to keep the common property maintained in good condition over the Christmas period and to enable the engagement of suitable replacements once the terms of the new agreements are finalised.
  2. Because the Interim Arrangement is a new arrangement for a term of 2 months, the village manager is not a 'service contractor' for the purposes of the Act. The applicant's contention that the agreement has been 'extended' is a mischaracterisation of the proper legal effect of the Interim Arrangement. The village manager is holding over on a periodic basis and the committee has, effectively, given notice of termination of that periodic arrangement as of 26 January 2026.
  3. The fees payable to the village manager for the Interim Arrangement are within the relevant limit for committee spending.
  4. The applicant claims the decision was influenced by personal bias, favouritism, and conduct contrary to the code of conduct but has failed to articulate the statutory or other bases upon which those things could be relied upon to invalidate the committee's decision.
  5. The applicant's allegation that the committee "formally acknowledged" it was in a state of disarray is untrue and misleading. The letter at Annexure A to the application is not a formal letter from the committee but a letter of resignation from 3 committee members. The applicant has not provided any evidence that the committee is incapable of fulfilling its statutory functions.
  6. In regard to the alleged conflict of interest, a friendship is not an automatic disqualifying conflict. At least 3 other committee members could equally be described as 'enemies' of the representatives of the village manager which would similarly disqualify them from voting on the Interim Arrangement.
  7. In relation to the concerns about the capacity of one of the village manager's representatives to perform the required duties, the committee has addressed this by resolving to monitor the performance of David Wood to ensure the work meets the relevant requirements and, where they do not, the village manager will be required to engage another person to complete that work.
  8. The fee paid under the Interim Arrangement is the same as the fee paid to the village manager under the original agreement (and the same fee that would otherwise be payable to any other contractor providing relevant services).
  9. The Fair Work Act does not apply to a holding over arrangement limited to 2 months, and even if it did, an adjudicator has no jurisdiction to make orders in relation to it.
• [11] The village manager, Aussie Holidays also made a brief submission, stating:
  1. Shortly before their contract expired, the committee asked them to stay on until 26 January apparently due to turmoil within the committee structure and the fact that there had been no appointment of replacement management. In good faith, they agreed to stay on until that date. This was not done for financial reasons but solely to assistant Riverlands and the residents.
  2. Their contract expired on 26 November. At no time have they requested an extension of the contract.
  3. They believe the committee acted to provide stable management for the important December/January period.

• [12] The only issue at this time is whether an interim order is warranted. To determine whether it is just and equitable to grant interim relief, it is necessary to consider:
  1. whether the application raises a 'serious legal issue' with some likelihood of success at final determination, that is, whether there is any merit to the application; and
  2. whether the balance of convenience favours the interim order being granted. This requires balancing the inconvenience of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused against the impact of refusing interim relief if final orders are ultimately granted. Of particular significance is whether an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm.

• [13] The only question raised by the application is whether there is any basis to invalidate the committee resolution to engage the village manager for a further two months. Presently, the application presents little basis for such an order.
• [14] Firstly, contrary to the applicant's claims, it does not appear the committee purported to extend the village manager's agreement. Rather the agreement ended on 26 November 2025. Pursuant to clause 5.3 of the contract, there is no option to extend or renew the agreement, but the village manager may reapply for the position. I understand Aussie Holidays has elected not to reapply. As submitted by the body corporate, and as the minutes and subsequent correspondence issued to owners also indicate, the committee decided to continue the current arrangements on an interim month-to-month basis until an alternative contractor can be considered and approved at a general meeting. Prima facie, this does not amount to engagement of a 'service contractor' for the purposes of the Act (for which an ordinary resolution is required).[5] Further, I note the fee payable to the village manager for this Interim Arrangement is within the committee's spending limit. The applicant does not argue otherwise. In my preliminary view, the decision appears to be one within the committee's power to make.

• [15] Secondly, the applicant makes various allegations against the committee members but has not established how the committee's actions makes the resolution unlawful. He vaguely suggests that the committee has acted unreasonably but has not substantiated this on the current evidence.
• [16] Section 94(1) of the Act lists the general functions of a body corporate, which includes administering the common property and body corporate assets for the benefit of the owners in the scheme. The body corporate must act reasonably in carrying out its functions including in making, or not making a decision.[6] The Act also obligates the committee to act reasonably in making a decision.[7]
• [17] What is reasonable is a question of fact, having regard to all the circumstances of each case. Reasonable decision making takes into account all relevant factors that have a rational bearing on the issue and excludes those factors that are irrelevant.[8] The question is not whether a 'better' or more informed decision could have been made, but whether it was reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case.[9] The burden is on the applicant, as the one challenging the decision, to demonstrate that the body corporate acted unreasonably in making that decision.
• [18] Presently, the applicant has not evidenced how the committee acted unreasonably in resolving to engage the manager for a further 2 months. Conversely, it seems to me that the committee reasonably considered relevant factors, including the following as submitted by the body corporate:
  1. this is a temporary arrangement until new contracts are finalised and new contractors are appointed;
  2. it will ensure the body corporate fulfills its maintenance obligations in the interim period;
  3. the village manager already has the skills and experience to perform the role without training;
  4. the village manager is already familiar with the body corporate's property and equipment; and
  5. the monthly duties and remuneration are the same as under the original agreement.
• [19] The applicant says the extension of the contract imposes an additional cost of $16,500 on owners who are already experiencing financial hardship and that such a cost is avoidable. I see no merit to this argument. Owners do not appear to be directly impacted as no additional levies are being raised to cover this 2 month period. Rather, these costs are likely to have been factored into the existing budget and levy contributions. As the body corporate submits, the same fee would otherwise have been payable to any other contractor providing relevant services.
• [20] I also see no merit to the applicant's conflict of interest argument. While a person may have an interest in a matter being decided, it is only where that interest could conflict with the member's duty to properly consider the motion that the interest must be disclosed (and the person refrain from voting).[10] Simply because a committee member has an interest in the subject matter of a motion does not of itself mean there is a conflict.[11] Prima facie, the chairperson's existing friendship with the village manager does not necessarily demonstrate a conflict for the purposes of section 66 of the Standard Module.

• [21] There remains one issue that potentially warrants further investigation if this application proceeds to final orders. I note that in approving the additional 2 month engagement, the committee has permitted the village manager to continue residing in the manager's residence, which I understand is common property. A question arises as to whether the committee may authorise occupation of common property or whether such a decision can only be made by the body corporate at a general meeting. In any case, the body corporate may ratify the decision at a general meeting if necessary.

• [22] Even where the application raises a serious legal issue, this does not automatically justify the granting of an interim order. Adjudicators must consider whether the balance of convenience favours the granting of interim relief. In this case, I am not satisfied it does.
• [23] The applicant says there is a risk that the village manager will be paid under a contract that is later found to have been approved unlawfully and that payments made may not be recoverable. The applicant also suggests that proceeding with the contract may open the body corporate to other legal liabilities.
• [24] The body corporate submits that the purpose of the body corporate engaging the village manager on a short term basis was to enable the body corporate to transition seamlessly from the previous management agreement to a new management arrangement, once the terms and conditions of the new arrangement had been finalised. If interim orders are granted and final orders are dismissed (noting the Interim Arrangement will have ended long before final orders are made), the body corporate risks the village manager commencing proceedings against the body corporate, noting the manager has been performing the duties under the Interim Arrangement since 27 November 2025 and is entitled to payment. Further, the body corporate says it will be forced to immediately engage another contractor to perform the duties of the village manager in order to fulfil its maintenance obligations. In that case, the body corporate will be liable to pay both the village manager and the new contractor for the performance of the relevant duties.
• [25] Conversely, the body corporate submits that if interim orders are dismissed but final orders are granted, the body corporate will have paid the village manager to perform the same duties at the same rate as it did under the agreement for a period of only 2 months and the body corporate will have fulfilled its maintenance obligations over that 2 month period with no disruption over the Christmas holiday period.
• [26] In my view, the balance of convenience weighs in favour of dismissing the application so as to maintain the status quo over the Christmas period until the end of the engagement on 26 January 2026. This is only a period of just over 6 weeks. This would result in least disruption and detriment to the body corporate. The common property would continue to be maintained at the same standard. The village manager would be paid for duties performed which are simply the same services they have been providing to the body corporate for the past 2 years. I see no harm being caused if interim relief is not granted. There is no extra levy being sought from owners. There is also no suggestion that the manager's residence is needed for another purpose during this time. While there may be a question about the committee's power to authorise occupation of the residence, it would not be unreasonable in the circumstances for the body corporate to ratify the decision at a general meeting if required.
• [27] On the other hand, if I were to grant the interim order, this would result in the body corporate being left without caretaking services during this interim period. This does not seem to be in the interests of owners, particularly if the committee is in a state of flux as the applicant suggests. It would also require the village manager to immediately move out of their accommodation. I do not consider this a just and equitable outcome particularly in circumstances where the application presents little merit.

• [28] The applicant bears the onus of satisfying me that interim orders are warranted. For the reasons above, I am not satisfied the circumstances justify an interim order.
• [29] The application will now be returned to the Commissioner to progress under the Act.
• [30] I note the village manager's engagement will cease on 26 January 2026. In these circumstances and given the absence of a prima facie case, there seems little purpose for the application to proceed to final orders.

[5] See section 135 of the Standard Module

[9] Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1997] FCA 1311

[10] Section 66(1) & (2) of the Standard Module

[11] See for example River Plaza [2023] QBCCMCmr 125 at [32] and Jobo Place [2019] QBCCMCmr 443 at [42]-[46]