//
austlii:qld/QBCCMCmr/2026/37
General information, not legal advice.
QBCCMCmr
2026-02-16
Original judgment source is linked above.
Riverside Lakes Estate [2026] QBCCMCmr 37
The Body Corporate for Riverside Lakes Estate (respondent)
Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), sections 227(1)(b) and 229(3)(a)
BILLING FOR BULK SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY - whether owner should retain feed in tariff after body corporate ceased receiving it; COMMITTEE MOTION - validity of decision to instruct ERC to cease paying solar credits; GENERAL MEETING MOTION - validity of motion purporting to instruct owners with solar array infrastructure to set export to zero.
[1] Riverview Lakes Estate community titles scheme was established in January 2015 with the registration of survey plan 198296, a standard format plan of subdivision. It contains 37 large, semi-rural lots in Yengarie, near Maryborough, ranging in size from 4,051m2 (lot 13) to 39,880m2 (lot 37), not all of which have been built on.
[2] Wendy Bartlett, owner of lot 33 since February 2021, brings this application against the body corporate, challenging the validity of the decision 'to remove solar credits', first notified to affected owners by email on 3 April 2025. Ms Bartlett seeks the following orders:
[3] This application is about the billing of individual owners for the bulk supply of electricity to the body corporate's embedded network.
[4] An embedded network is formed when there is one 'parent' point of connection to the electricity distribution network with multiple 'child' meters within it. The embedded network is configured so the owner or operator of the site can on-sell electricity to the residents within the embedded network. The electricity retail customer for an embedded network is generally the embedded network owner or operator. It receives the power bill from the electricity retailer.
[5] The body corporate for Riverside Lakes Estate is the embedded network owner/operator. It has engaged ERC Energy Pty Ltd (ERC) as its Australian Energy Regulator (AER) authorised electricity retailer under the National Electricity Rules (NER).
[6] ERC has been billing individual owners for electricity since at least 2016. The electricity account issued to the body corporate by Ergon Energy on 17 May 2019 stated the Tariff Class Description as "_Standard Asset Customer - Small ( Hi All,
You may notice that your current electricity bill does not include a credit for solar.
This is because Ergon no longer pay a credit for solar export - in fact Ergon haven't paid a
feed-in-tariff since September 16th 2021.
Effectively, the 10¢ per KWh you have been receiving has been subsidised by owners
who do not have solar.
How the electricity billing for the estate works is like this:
There is one meter for the whole estate.
Each month Ergon 'read' the meter and issue a bill for that month, which is paid from
our accumulated funds (admin. fund).
Each quarter***** (every three months) ERC issues an individual bill to each household
which reflects your usage.
All those bill payments that come in then go back into our accumulated funds.
The rate ERC bills you is slightly higher than what Ergon charges us - this extra amount
goes toward paying for street lights and ERCs fees.
*we will be asking ERC to issue meter read requests on the first day of the quarter from
now on as it aligns with Ergon billing and simplifies the process greatly.
The additional 10¢ per KWh you have been receiving doesn't come from Ergon FITs
(credits), it is coming from income lost from the sinking fund; there's no method to
generate the credit you receive other than from the revenue received from all owners
within the estate.
You do still receive a benefit from having solar - each KWh of power you generate is a
KWh of power that doesn't go onto your meter, and doesn't appear on your bill.
[74] In circumstances where the committee submits that committee decisions during the applicant's tenure on the committee were not made strictly in accordance with the legislation either, I decline to invalidate the decision for these technical reasons. The legislation establishes an expectation of self-management as an inherent aspect of community titles schemes.[9] It is not appropriate for an adjudicator to intervene in the management of a body corporate unless there is a substantive legal basis to do so.
[75] It is acknowledged in case law that the very detailed provisions of the body corporate regulations make non-compliance almost inevitable from time to time. It has been concluded that meetings and decisions should be preserved despite minor errors or irregularities, unless it can be shown that the body corporate has acted unreasonably or that owners have been disadvantaged.[10]
[76] Of note, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal has said:[11]
The BCCMA is a lengthy, technical and complex instrument, with no fewer than six sets of subordinate and similarly complex "module regulations". It cannot be the case that the legislature expected all, or even most committee members of a body corporate, small, large or very large, to be experts in corporate law, or masters of community management. Indeed, the BCCMA implicitly recognises that, if this legislation were at all times, and in all circumstances applied with the utmost rigour and most precious attention to detail, its objects and policies would be retarded by endemic disputation, rather than advanced.
The direction that a "body corporate must act reasonably" in the performance of its "general functions" does not suggest that every minor irregularity should be pounced on to impede or paralyse the normal conduct of business. The Code of Conduct for committee members does not demand administrative perfection, but simply directs them to "take reasonable steps" to comply with the BCCMA_._
[77] Section 158 of the Act enables a body corporate to supply, or engage another person to supply, services for the benefit of owners and occupiers of lots in the way, and to the extent, authorised under the regulation module applying to the scheme.
[78] Section 210(1) of the Standard Module provides that a body corporate may supply, or engage another person to supply, services, including electricity, for the benefit of lot owners and occupiers.
[79] Where a body corporate decides to supply services, section 210 of the Standard Module provides:
(2) The body corporate may, by agreement with a person for whom services are supplied, charge for the services, including for the installation of, and the maintenance and other operating costs associated with, utility infrastructure for the services, but only to the extent necessary for reimbursing the body corporate for supplying the services.
(3) In acting under subsections (1) and (2), the body corporate must, to the greatest practicable extent, ensure the total cost to the body corporate, other than body corporate administrative costs for supplying a service, including the cost of a commercial service, and the cost of purchasing, operating, maintaining and replacing any equipment, is recovered from the users of the service.
[80] There is some tension between sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 210 of the Standard Module. The phrase "the body corporate must, to the greatest practicable extent"[12] in section 210(3) clearly imposes a positive duty on the body corporate to take steps to recover the costs of supplying services. In contrast, the language of section 210(2) is permissive - the "body corporate may ...."[13]
Where a body corporate supplies or engages someone to supply services, whether or not it has an agreement with those who receive the services, the body corporate must attempt to recover the costs of the supply of that service from those receiving that service. However, the obligation to do so is to 'the greatest practicable extent'. Moreover, the body corporate must act reasonably in recovering the cost of supply.[14]
[82] I concur. In my view, the body corporate is obligated by section 210(3) to try and recover the costs of supply where practicable and section 210(2) does not preclude the body corporate from seeking to charge for services even in the absence of an agreement.[15] However, the body corporate does remain obligated to act reasonably in recovering the cost of supply.
[83] The body corporate for Riverside Lakes Estate pays Ergon (pursuant to invoices issued every month) and meets that liability from a levy on individual lot owners according to the extent of the supply to individual lots (invoiced approximately quarterly). The committee says invoices to owners from ERC are a cost recovery process of the cost of the electricity and supply to the properties; there is no profit from anyone on the supply of electricity. I believe the alleged $15,000 'surplus' referred to by the owner of lot 16 in their submission is simply due to the timing differences of the invoicing, with Ergon generally invoicing monthly and ERC generally, quarterly. ERC have confirmed that the methodology for the recovery of electricity at Riverside Lakes is and always has been a recovery cost process calculated from the bulk bill residential costs. There is no evidence before me that the body corporate is engaging in anything more than recovering its costs (which include ERC fees) of supplying the electricity. If there were, that would amount to a clear breach of section 210(2) of the Standard Module and section 96 of the Act, which prohibits a body corporate from carrying on a business.
Reasonableness of decision to cease paying solar credits
[84] A body corporate has a statutory obligation to act reasonably, including when it is making decisions.[16] The committee also has a statutory duty to act reasonably when making decisions.[17] These duties are owed to, and should consider the interests of, lot owners and occupiers of the scheme.[18]
[85] To act reasonably in making decisions, a body corporate (or its committee), must evaluate relevant factors that have a bearing on the issue in the particular circumstances and ignore irrelevant factors.[19] Whether the committee has acted reasonably is a question of fact having regard to the nature of the decision and the circumstances in which it was made.[20]
[86] The burden is on the applicant to satisfy the adjudicator that the body corporate acted unreasonably. It will not be sufficient to show the body corporate could have made a better or more reasonable decision, or that a different body corporate could reasonably have come to a different decision.
[87] If an adjudicator is satisfied the committee has properly considered relevant factors and not acted on irrelevant factors, the decision will stand unless the adjudicator is satisfied the decision itself is not legally reasonable.[21]
[88] Further, the committee cannot decide to approve a motion that would be unlawful or unenforceable.[22] So if the body corporate was failing to comply with its obligations under the NER or its AER exemption, that may be unreasonable.
[89] However, I do not have jurisdiction to determine the extent of the body corporate's obligations under the NER or its AER exemption and whether it can or cannot continue to credit owner's electricity accounts with solar credits after Ergon ceased to pay them under those laws. Although the applicant has contacted and raised complaints with both the AER and the Queensland Energy and Water Ombudsman (EWOQ), EWOQ have stated that if the body corporate has decided to cease funding the Solar Feed in Tariff (FiT), this is out of their jurisdiction[23]. The AER has said it is not a dispute resolution service and cannot directly assist consumers to resolve disputes with energy sellers in regard to retailer billing and solar feed in through embedded networks[24]. Without evidence of findings from a relevant authority or decision-maker on those issues, I cannot reach a conclusion that the body corporate has acted unlawfully in regard to its decision to cease paying solar credits to individual owners under the NER or its AER exemption.
[90] In this case, a highly relevant factor for the committee to consider was the statutory requirements of section 210(3) of the Standard Module. As discussed above, if a body corporate decides to supply services for the benefit of lot owners, it is required to seek to recover the costs, to the greatest practicable extent, from users of the service.
[91] Ms Bartlett says in an email to Matt of ERC on 7 April 2025, that her understanding of what was previously happening is that ERC purchased the excess kWh at a rate of 10c per kWh, and then those kWh circulated into the estate's network and were sold on to other customers in the estate who could use the energy at a rate of 30 cents per kWh. She says this helped to keep every account within the estate's network smaller as the estate's customers used this 'cheaper' energy if possible.
[92] In Matt's reply on 7 April 2025, he confirms that ERC does not buy FITs as she claimed as all supply is through the body corporate Ergon account.
[93] The applicant has failed to persuade me that the committee acted unreasonably in deciding to instruct ERC to cease paying solar credits. Ergon had stopped paying feed in tariffs from at least September 2022, when the estate was reclassified from a 'small' to a 'large' customer and moved to Tariff 44. Electricity bills supplied by the committee show that no solar credits were paid to the body corporate from September 2021 (12 months earlier) onwards. Based on the material before me, at the time it made its decision, it was not impracticable and/or unreasonable in the circumstances, for the committee to instruct ERC to cease paying solar credits.
[94] In her email reply of 17 December 2025 attaching copies of electricity bills I had requested, the applicant herself appears to acknowledge that there is no practicable way of reducing the electricity accounts for those owners who have solar infrastructure that feeds into the grid when she says For months I have been looking for a mechanism by which the solar credits that Ergon paid to be paid to the actual producers, but I don't believe one exists. I believe that as Ergon bulk bills the estate the credits were taken off the bulk bill account, thereby having a positive effect for all owners with or without solar systems, in reducing the bulk bill account.
[95] Despite specifically requesting it, I have not been provided with any information as to how it was determined that owners with solar array infrastructure would continue to receive a solar credit (although at a reduced rate of 10 cents per kwh) for solar exported to the grid, when Ergon was no longer paying them.
[96] Where the body corporate has a statutory duty to seek to recover the costs of supply from the users of the service to the greatest practicable extent, simply because the body corporate has previously credited owners' electricity accounts with solar credits does not mean it is acting unreasonably when it makes a decision to cease doing that in circumstances where Ergon no longer pays them. Moreover, the provision of an indirect benefit to lot owners generally from those who export to the grid is not, by itself, sufficient to justify payment of solar credits from body corporate funds.[25]
[97] In my view, it could be argued that it should not have been necessary for the committee to 'make a decision' to cease paying solar credits. When Ergon stopped paying solar credits to the body corporate, arguably it was unreasonable for ERC to continue crediting individual owners' electricity accounts with solar credits. There is no material before me, despite my requests for it, of the rationale for solar credits continuing to be paid to owners with solar array installations after Ergon ceased paying them.
[98] In summary, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the body corporate failed to act reasonably when it decided to instruct ERC to cease paying solar credits.
[99] Motion 14 of the 15 July 2025 AGM is recorded as follows in the minutes:
14. PREPARATION FOR SOLAR INSTALLATIONS ORDINARY RESOLUTION
John Peter Matthew Modzelewski & Diana Modzelewski, Lot 23
That the installed solar inverters have their export set to zero; this would allow other owners to more easily have Solar installed at their properties
Meeting Note: Questions were raised in regard to this motion where owners were seeking more information in regards to solar use/installation and having exports set to zero. Several discussions took place about why this was needed and the technical reasons why. Owners asked committee members to supply details of solar installer/electrician so they could contact to verify.
[100] Explanatory notes for the motion in the meeting material provided:
As Ergon no longer pay feed-in tariffs, there is no need/benefit in exporting power to Ergon which they can take at no cost to themselves, and on-sell to other customers on their network. Reducing exports to xero would make it easier for the rest of the owners to add solar.
[101] The applicant has conflated the committee decision to cease paying solar credits and motion 14 of the 2025 AGM. She did not separately address the validity of motion 14 but simply argued that if the committee decision to cease paying solar credits is invalid (which I have not been found to be the case), then it follows that motion 14 is also invalid. In its submission, the committee questions in what way motion 14 of the AGM affects or relates to the cessation of solar credit payments. I can't answer that question, but I do consider the resolution purportedly made pursuant to motion 14 invalid for the following reasons.
[102] I am concerned that owners did not have before them necessary and relevant information when making this decision. As a result, the body corporate failed to act reasonably in making it.
[103] The body corporate, as the embedded network owner/operator, or ERC as its approved authorised agent, is responsible for the submission of a connection application to Ergon for any solar or battery installations within the embedded network. To make a connection application, it is necessary to know details for the dwelling of the proposed installation and the total generation capacity and export limit already existing at the entire site. Each connection application must show the total generation capacity proposed for the site. Where there is existing generation at the site, it must be included. Each application must reflect the proposed export for the site.
[104] Ergon review the connection application and provide approval to the applicant. This is because an embedded network has one point of connection to the electricity distribution network and it's owned by the embedded network owner/operator. The NER state that the owner of that connection point must be the connection applicant and the party whom Ergon enters into the connection contract with. Approval from the embedded network owner/operator must be obtained and included within the connection application for the proposed solar or battery installation. It is the responsibility of the embedded network owner/operator to ensure a valid connection contract is in place with Ergon for any solar or batteries installed within an embedded network. The electrical contractor also has a responsibility to provide correct embedded network owner/operation information with a connection application.
[105] Where solar/batteries are already installed at a resident's dwelling and the embedded network owner/operator was not consulted, an electrical consultancy company should be engaged to audit the systems installed within the embedded network and submit:
[106] As the process, cost and technical requirements are greater for capacities over 30kVA, Ergon recommends the embedded network owner/operator asks all residents if they are interested in installing solar/batteries within a 12-month period. A connection enquiry and application for the larger capacity can be submitted to Ergon, the cost can be shared, and residents have 12 months to install their solar/battery system.[26]
[107] The committee submits that there is a limit to the export capacity of the estate of 30kVA. Since December 2024 when the old committee was voted out, the committee has received 2 enquiries asking for solar to be installed. Of these, only Betiz (25 Clearview Way) went on to engage an installer, which due to the limitation Ergon have on the embedded network, has not gone ahead. No new solar has been added to the estate to the committee's knowledge since it was elected in December 2024. Martin Snee does not have solar installed.
[108] In its submission the committee alleges that during the applicant's tenure on the committee, there were more solar systems installed in the embedded network than allowed by Ergon. It says, worryingly, the applicant is still telling owners that it's ok to add solar if export is set to zero - when she has already admitted she is aware that Ergon have imposed a limit and that limit has already been exceeded. An email to the committee from Trent Sengstock of EastCoast Electrical and Solar on 9 September 2025 refutes the email sent from Ryan Maxwell to the applicant, adding "From the existing Ergon connection agreement you have, a 30kva MAX inverter capacity is allowed onsite, this means anything over 30kva of inverter capacity even if set to 0 export would be in breach of the Ergon agreement. Only way to increase this would be to do a detailed enquiry with Ergon like we previously discussed."
[109] Based on the 9 September 2025 email from Trent Sengstock of EastCoast Electrical and Solar to the committee, it appears as though motion 14 of the 2025 AGM was voted on without any information concerning the existing Ergon connection agreement, its maximum inverter capacity and the futility of setting exports to zero if that capacity had already been exceeded. The email suggests that the body corporate would be in breach of its Ergon agreement if the 30kVa maximum inverter capacity had been exceeded. Further, there is no evidence before me that Ergon Energy had imposed any static zero export limit.
[110] As part of my investigation, I asked the committee and ERC to supply me with copies of any/all connection contracts in place with Ergon for any solar or batteries installed within the embedded network at Riverside Lakes Estate. The committee responded that there have been no new solar/inverter connections to the embedded network during the current committee's tenure. The committee says it contacted Ergon to see if it could find how many solar systems were installed according to their records, but they would not tell them unless they have an audit carried out.
[111] Ergon advised that there should be a record kept by the committee whenever a new solar system is installed. The committee says, despite repeated requests, the applicant has not forwarded any records from her time on the committee to it. The current committee is unsure when previous systems were installed, but for the approximately three-and-a-half years prior to the current committee taking over on December 11th 2024, the applicant was secretary and/or treasurer and should be able to supply records of any installations done during that period.
[112] It appears the body corporate has failed to keep records in accordance with the legislation. The application itself, and the submissions made in response to it, reveal a lack of knowledge and/or inconsistencies regarding owners' understanding of solar array installations and electricity billing within the scheme. Further, it seems to me as though an audit of the systems installed within the embedded network may be necessary based on the fact that the 30kVa maximum inverter capacity may have already been exceeded.
[113] I am satisfied on the basis of the material before me that the body corporate failed to act reasonably in purporting to pass motion 14 of the 2025 AGM because it did not have before it necessary, relevant information which includes the existing Ergon connection agreement and details of any and all connection contracts in place with Ergon for any solar or batteries installed within the embedded network at the scheme.
[114] I have ordered that the resolution purportedly passed pursuant to motion 14 of the 2025 AGM was at all times, void.
[116] In light of me dismissing the application, but for invalidating the resolution purportedly passed pursuant to motion 14 of the 2025 AGM, it would not be appropriate to make any of the above orders sought.
[117] I have invalidated the resolution purportedly passed pursuant to motion 14 of the 2025 AGM because I am satisfied the body corporate failed to act reasonably in making that decision. It failed to consider necessary and relevant information. But for that, I have dismissed the application for the reasons given above. The applicant has not satisfied me that the committee failed to act reasonably in directing ERC to cease paying solar credits in circumstances where Ergon had ceased paying them to the body corporate years before.
[1] See sections 227, 228, 229(3), and 276 of the Act
[5] Section 158 of the Act and section 210 of the Standard Module
[10] See also Wei-Xin Chen v Body Corporate for Wishart Village CTS 19482 (Unreported, District Court of Queensland, Appeal 4080/2000, Bolton J, 29 May 2001)
[11] Carroll & Ors v Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 [2013] QCATA 21 @ [22] - [23]
[12] See section 210(3) of the Standard Module, my emphasis added
[13] See section 210(2) of the Standard Module, my emphasis added
[14] See e.g., Calypso Plaza On Coolangatta [2023] QBCCMCmr 233 @ [46] considering the supply of and charging for hot water in view of the provisions of the Act and Accommodation Module; see also Henderson & Anor v The Body Corporate for Merrimac Heights [2011] QSC 336 @ [18] - [20]
[15] Whether it will be able to recover the charges is a different question. In the absence of a written agreement, it may be difficult for a body corporate to recover from a third party the historic costs of supply of a service.
[18] See Drift Palm Cove [2023] QBCCMCmr 421 at [50]
[19] See Body Corporate For Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at [42]
[20] Id. @ [40] - [42] citing Waters v Public Transport Corporation [1991] HCA 49
[22] See Section 58(6)(b)(ii) of the Standard Module
[23] See email to applicant of 21 July 2025 from EWOQ
[24] See email to applicant of 30 June 2025 from AER
[25] Adjudicators have consistently found a body corporate is not authorised to use its funds to pay for Christmas functions or make charitable donations. See e.g., Paradise Palms Country Club - The Keys [2022] QBCCMCmr 130; Kensington Gardens Retirement Village [2005] QBCCMCmr 269
[26] The information @ [103] - [106] was obtained from Ergon's website www.ergon.com.au/network