Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), sections 227(1)(b) and 229(3)(a)

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

INTERIM ORDER - whether warranted; REASONABLENESS of committee failing to respond to request to vary access condition for keeping pets on basis of new report.

1. Until the application for final orders is determined, the Body Corporate for Royal Palm CTS 9098, and/or its committee, must not take any steps to enforce the condition of approval for the keeping of a pet at the scheme which requires pet owners to enter and/or exit the scheme with their pet by using the basement path/ramp/driveway.

• [1] Jodi Panayotov, a joint owner of lot 106 (unit 17B) since December 2021, brings this application[1] against the body corporate, regarding the keeping of a dog at the scheme; specifically, how the dog enters and exits the lot.
• [2] The issue has some history. Mrs Panayotov and her husband sought and received committee approval to keep their dog, subject to conditions, one of which required that the dog be brought to and from the scheme only via the shared access ramp to the scheme's basement carpark (access condition). The access condition does not permit the applicant and her husband to use their preferred route for entry and exit, which is the ground floor lift lobby. In the first adjudication application[2], which followed a conciliation application for which no agreement was reached[3], the adjudicator granted an interim order that they be permitted to enter and exit the scheme with their dog through the ground floor lift foyer leading directly out of the building on the Gold Coast Highway side of the scheme.[4] Determining the application for final orders, the adjudicator was not satisfied that it was unreasonable generally to require dog walkers to use the driveway, but ordered the body corporate, on 31 May 2023, before it took steps to enforce conditions of approval for the applicants' dog concerning routes to and from the scheme, to allow the applicants 30 days in which to make any further application to the body corporate concerning conditions of approval appropriate and reasonably necessary in the particular case.[5] The adjudicator commented, The parties can explore alternative access proposals, consider any evidence of harm or inconvenience actually caused to other occupiers by the applicants' use of the ground floor lift lobby while the interim order was in place, and the applicants can put their case and provide medical or other independent evidence as to any particular risks posed for Jodie Panayatov in using the driveway ramp.
• [3] Mrs Panayotov submitted a further application to the committee with a medical certificate, explaining she has a condition and advising she should avoid ramps and stairs. The body corporate refused to change its position on the access condition. Mrs Panayotov challenged the committee's decision not to remove the access condition.[6] Both final and interim orders were sought. On 24 November 2023, the adjudicator made an interim order that the applicant was permitted to enter and exit the scheme with their dog through the ground floor lift foyer leading directly out of the building on the Gold Coast Highway side of the scheme.[7] On 18 July 2024, the application for final orders was dismissed because the adjudicator was not persuaded that the committee acted unreasonably in deciding to maintain the access condition in light of the limited medical evidence Mrs Panayotov provided to it. The adjudicator commented:

However, it remains open to the applicant to obtain further medical evidence or a report from

another appropriate expert if she believes she is unable to comply with the access condition, or

that doing so imposes an unacceptable risk to her in light of her medical condition. For

example, she might want to explore whether a medical professional or other expert could

conduct a site visit to the scheme and provide a detailed report on the access points available

to her and whether certain routes in and out of the scheme are unsafe for her due to her

medical condition. The applicant may then wish to provide a more fulsome application to the

committee requesting that it reconsider the access condition in light of the further evidence she

• [4] Mrs Panayotov says she then sought the services of a physiotherapist who visited the scheme and assessed the driveway ramp on 3 October 2024. The physiotherapist provided a document, in which she concludes:

As a physiotherapist, I share the same concerns with Jodi and her husband as the driveway she is required to navigate with her dog is extremely dangerous and a high falls risk which can be detrimental for her health and wellbeing. I strongly recommend that Jodi be allowed permission to use an alternate path that is more safe for her to let her dog out of the building and enjoy her walks which in turn allows her to manage her osteoporosis.

• [5] The Panayotov's then wrote to the body corporate on 3 October 2024 with the new medical evidence, asking it to grant Mrs Panayotov an exemption and they again refused her request, stating in an email on 14 October 2024 that:

The Committee has considered you email of the 4th October and the advice of the physiotherapist.

Within the advice of the outside professional there are two points the committee is still not clear on.

1. Is the physiotherapist qualified to make a judgment on the safety of the driveway when we have assessments by a company, versed and certified in such matters, that advises that it is safe.
2. In the Adjudicators Order 31 May 2023 The Adjudicator stated "The Body Corporate .... must allow the applicants 30 days in which to make, and then the Body Corporate must give genuine and adequate consideration to, any further application to the Body Corporate concerning conditions of approval appropriate and reasonably necessary in the particular case." While you provided a certificate from a GP dated 15/6/23, in the Adjudicator's ruling of 18/7/24 the certificate was dismissed.
3. While Jodie advised the physiotherapist she had osteoporosis, the committee understands that Bone Density Tests and reports by an orthopaedic specialist would provide evidence of this of the Committee.

Thus at this time the committee rejects your request until such time as evidence of the condition is provided.

• [6] The Panayotov's say they saw no point in responding to the above as:
  • A physiotherapist is eminently qualified to asses Mrs Panayotov's ability and the dangers she faces using the driveway ramp alongside cars.
  • Mrs Panayotov's medical certificate was never rejected by the adjudicator. The adjudicator asked for further evidence which she supplied, with the physiotherapist report and a second expert report below.
  • The driveway ramp was never formally certified as a pedestrian path; certification was never sought with council and council approval was never sought for the installation of a green pedestrian path and railing on the driveway ramp, therefore the body corporate has acted unreasonably in drafting these access conditions in its bylaws.
  • The body corporate will again reject anything Mrs Panayotov puts before them as all 7 members of the committee are 'anti-dog owners'. The Panayotov's see no point in responding to the body corporate, let alone seeking further medical evidence of Mrs Panayotov's condition, which is irreversible, or spending more time and money on this.
• [7] A group of 6 lot owners, including the Panayotov's, sought expert advice from a licenced level 1 building certifier, Sandra Thomas-Sear of Thomas Sear Consulting (TSC). She conducted a 1 and a half hour site visit on 30 September 2024 and compiled a report dated 17 October 2024 which concluded that:

The green path (driveway) is not a compliant path and is a major safety issue for all occupants, the original driveway was designed only for vehicle access and should be returned to restrict only vehicle access. Any alterations or additions of a pedestrian ramp on the driveway would impact the existing driveway and currently make it non-compliant in regard to correct width required for the two-way driveway required under the Local Council's Operational Works Transport Code and Australian Standards.

It is unreasonable for the body corporate to expect any owners or occupiers to use the green path, as it is not compliant to the National Construction Code or Australian Standards and also poses a major safety risk for slips and falls and also vehicle accidents.

• [8] Michael Panayotov emailed the body corporate manager on 5 November 2024, attaching the 17 October 2024 report and asking that he and his wife be immediately allowed to enter and exit the building safely via the ground floor with their pet to avoid serious injury. A response was requested by Friday 8 November 2024. Mr Panayotov specifically requested that the email be passed on to the 'RP BC asap'.
• [9] The Panayotov's say they expected a quick response from the body corporate and their immediate agreement to allow dog owners to enter and exit the building safely via a safe and compliant alternative. However, at the time this application was lodged on 14 November 2024, they were yet to receive a response.
• [10] The Panayotov's allege the body corporate acted unreasonably and put them at risk of irreversible harm by not immediately rescinding the current dog access by-laws based on TSC's report presented to them on 5 November 2024, which clearly states 'The green path (driveway) is not a compliant path and is a major safety issue for all occupants'.
• [11] The Panayotov's believe the body corporate acted unreasonably by drafting dog access by-laws without any reference to the legislation regarding pedestrian access to buildings and in not immediately rescinding the current dog access by-law based on TSC's report. They seek final orders that they, and all resident dog owners be allowed to enter and exit the building through the ground floor lift foyer with their pets; and that the body corporate seeks council approval, compliance and certification for any entry or exit routes for dog owners other than those already enjoyed by other residents in the building before any such by-laws or special conditions are voted on and/or enforced.
• [12] An interim order is sought to allow Mrs Panayotov to enter and exit the building with their dog through the ground floor lift foyer and enter/exit towards the Gold Coast Highway and/or preferably enter/exit towards Lacey's Lane using the compliant pedestrian ramp leading to the Lacey's Lane exit, to avoid serious and irreparable harm being done until a final order is reached. The Lacey's Lane option has no stairs, unlike the pedestrian path and access to the Gold Coast Highway from the ground floor lift foyer.

• [13] Royal Palm, a residential and holiday accommodation scheme at Palm Beach on the Gold Coast, was established in May 1984 with the registration of building units plan 6118. The scheme contains 152 lots in a 26-storey building with a 3-storey basement.
• [14] In accordance with section 247 of the Act, the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management referred the application to me to decide whether the nature or urgency of the application warrants an interim order. The Commissioner referred the application notwithstanding that some affected persons have not been given notice of the application or afforded an opportunity to make submissions.
• [15] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from a respondent or affected party before an interim order is decided. The committee was given an opportunity (which was subsequently extended at the request of its lawyers) to make a submission on the application for an interim order. Grace Lawyers made a submission on behalf of the body corporate.
• [16] This dispute falls within the dispute resolution provisions of the legislation[9]. I may make an interim order if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates[10]. An interim order is normally only warranted when an application raises a serious legal question to be determined and the balance of convenience favours making the interim order.

• [17] The lawyers for the body corporate argue that the only claim that can be relevant in determining the interim orders is whether the committee acted unreasonably in making its decision to maintain the access condition as communicated in the committee's letter dated 14 October 2024. The only material given by the applicant to the committee for its decision was an undated letter from Ms Jessica Brumby of Gold Coast Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation Pty Ltd.
• [18] The lawyers say the applicant wrongly relies on statements made by Ms Sandra Sear in her report dated 17 October 2024 and given to the committee on about 5 November 2024. They say that document post-dates the committee's decision and was given to the committee after the decision being challenged. It cannot inform whether the committee acted unreasonably in making its decision.
• [19] I disagree. The applicant specifically says they saw no point in responding to the committee's letter of 14 October 2024. Instead, Michael Panayotov emailed the body corporate manager on 5 November 2024, attaching the 17 October 2024 TSC report and asking that he and his wife be immediately allowed to enter and exit the building safely via the ground floor with their pet to avoid serious injury. A response was requested by Friday 8 November 2024. Mr Panayotov specifically requested that the email be passed on to the 'RP BC asap'.
• [20] The Panayotov's say they expected a quick response from the body corporate and their immediate agreement to allow dog owners to enter and exit the building safely via a safe and compliant alternative. However, at the time this application was lodged on 14 November 2024, they were yet to receive a response.
• [21] The Panayotov's specifically allege (amongst other things) that the body corporate acted unreasonably and put them at risk of irreversible harm by not immediately rescinding the current dog access by-laws based on TSC's report presented to them on 5 November 2024, which clearly states 'The green path (driveway) is not a compliant path and is a major safety issue for all occupants'.
• [22] I disagree with the body corporate lawyers' assertion that this case turns on whether the committee acted unreasonably pursuant to section 100(5) of the Act in deciding to maintain the access condition on or about 14 October 2024. Whilst the applicant clearly believes that the committee did act unreasonably in that regard, the crux of this dispute is the body corporate's failure to respond to the email of 5 November 2024 from Mr Panayotov to the committee, requesting that he and his wife immediately be allowed to enter and exit the building safely via the ground floor with their pet to avoid serious injury, in light of the TSC report dated 17 October 2024.
• [23] The body corporate has made no submissions regarding that issue, despite acknowledging receipt of Michael Panayotov's email and TSC's 17 October 2024 report 'on or about 5 November 2024' and it clearly being an issue raised by the applicant in this application for interim and final orders.

• [24] The lawyers for the body corporate contend that the applicant has not demonstrated that urgent circumstances exist which necessitate the granting of an interim order. They note that Royal Palm is not the applicant's primary residence and say allowing the interim order would cause greater disruption to permanent occupiers of the scheme, most of whom have no concerns regarding the current access conditions. The consistent enforcement of the by-laws is essential to maintaining the community's standards and safety, they say. Further, there is no immediate or ongoing risk of harm that would justify urgent intervention. They say the applicant has used the ramp previously without incident and the body corporate has implemented improvements to enhance pedestrian safety.
• [25] Although Mrs Panayotov does not specifically address urgency, I accept that the body corporate intends to enforce compliance with the access condition, based on its response to this application. There is a genuine possibility that approval for the keeping of the dog could be withdrawn for any future failure to comply with the access condition that requires occupants with approved dogs to enter and exit the scheme via the basement.
• [26] Although the unit is a holiday unit and the applicant and her husband spend most of their time in their principal place of residence in Brisbane, the holiday season is imminent and it is more likely that more time will be spent at the unit during the upcoming holiday season.
• [27] Further, and most significantly, the body corporate has not considered the TSC 17 October 2024 report when making its submission. That report specifically states that the green path (driveway) poses a major safety risk for all occupants for slips and falls, and also vehicle accidents.
• [28] I am satisfied that the nature and/or urgency of the circumstances warrants further consideration of whether interim orders would be appropriate.

• [29] While I will not decide the legal questions posed by the application at this interim stage of proceedings, it is necessary to confirm that serious questions are raised as part of determining whether an interim order would be appropriate.
• [30] Mrs Panayotov argues that the by-law that requires dog owners to enter and exit the building with their pets through the basement lift foyer and via a driveway ramp is unreasonable because:
  • The ground floor lift foyer (which dog owners are banned from using) is a safer alternative because it is double the size of the basement lift foyer (which dog owners are forced to use as per the by-laws) offering more complete separation between dog and non-dog owners.
  • During the 2 years or so that the Panayotov's were using the ground floor lift foyer for access and egress pursuant to interim orders permitting them to do so, no incident was reported.
  • The green pedestrian path with one handrail, a fob key and a non-slip surface on the driveway, was constructed in mid-2023 without Gold Coast City Council approval, without certification from a qualified building certifier and with disregard for legislation governing shared paths between pedestrians and vehicles. The path is not a compliant accessible ramp in accordance with Australian Standards AS 14281.1-2009 or AS 14281.1-2021.
• [31] Specifically, regarding the green path, the TSC report notes:
  • Access to and from any building should provide accessible access in compliance with Australian Standard AS1428.1 2009 at all times, for all owners and occupiers, whether they have a pet or not, in accordance with The Disability (Access to Premises- Buildings) Standards 2010, which is legislated under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.
  • The green path is not a compliant accessible ramp in accordance with Australian Standards AS14281.1-2009 or AS14281.1-2021 for the following reasons:
    1. Continuous accessible path of travel shall not include a step, stairway, or other impairment. The existing driveway ramp and lead into the driveway ramp has a stairway and a speed bump which is a tripping hazard.
    2. Ramps will have a maximum grade of 1 in 14 (and the report found that the grade of the driveway ranges between 1.7 and 1.6 which is up to 70% steeper than the legal limit.
    3. Landings at the top and bottom of ramps and middle landing are required.
    4. Ramp shall have a handrail on each side of the ramp (but only has a handrail on one side)
    5. Ramp shall have kerb or kerb rails on both sides of the ramp (which are also non-existent)
  • The driveway is a circulation roadway and the carpark entry and exit point and is required to be maintained in accordance with the original construction and/or AS2890.1 Parking Facilities
    1. Two way ramp, minimum 5.5m in width (in her report, Sandra found the two way ramp to be 5.7m in total and the green pedestrian path to be 1m which makes the 2 way driveway ramp 4.7m and therefore non-compliant. To be compliant with a designated pedestrian path, the driveway ramp would need to be at least 6.5m or 5.5m for cars plus 1m for the green pedestrian path under AS2890).
    2. A building of this classification and size and number of carparks, should maintain the two-way entry and exit to avoid queuing (this means that there is no option for the body corporate to turn the driveway into a one lane driveway).
    3. Section 4 - pedestrian service: "Parking areas shall be designed so that through traffic is excluded and pedestrian entrance and exits are separate from vehicular entrances and exits." AS2890.1 "In Split level carparks, a stairway or pedestrian ramp shall be located at the split level carparks for pedestrian access between levels and so pedestrians do not have to use vehicular ramps".
• [32] TSC concluded:

The green path (driveway) is not a compliant path and is a major safety issue for all occupants, the original driveway was designed only for vehicle access and should be returned to restrict only vehicle access. Any alterations or additions of a pedestrian ramp on the driveway would impact the existing driveway and currently make it non-compliant in regard to correct width required for the two-way driveway required under the Local Council's Operational Works Transport Code and Australian Standards. It is unreasonable for the body corporate to expect any owners or occupiers to use the green path, as it is not compliant to the National Construction Code or Australian Standards and also poses a major safety risk for slips and falls and also vehicle accidents.

• [33] In addition to the building certifier's report, the Panayotov's also sought expert advice from a qualified physiotherapist to assess the driveway ramp's suitability for Mrs Panayotov's use. She conducted a site visit on 3 October 2024 and compiled a report finding that:

a) Jodi is required to "navigate a dangerous driveway from an underground car park at the resort which is very steep and slippery when wet. This is a falls hazard and for Jodi could be detrimental". > > b) There is also a "a speed bump across the entirety of the driveway for cars and pedestrians alike to go over, this is also a falls risk". > > c) "There is also no separate path for pedestrians, instead they are required to share the road with two lanes of traffic entering/leaving the car park." > > d) "Jodi disclosed that has been diagnosed with severe osteoporosis which means that her bone density is extremely low and she is at a very high risk of fractures. Hence, the path she has to take to take her dog out of the building is especially dangerous and can be critical to her should she mistep or the driveway be too wet and she falls over."

• [34] The physiotherapist concluded that 'the driveway she is required to navigate with her dog is extremely dangerous and a high falls risk which can be detrimental for her health and wellbeing. I strongly recommend that Jodi be allowed permission to use an alternate path that is more safe for her to let her dog out of the building and enjoy her walks which in turn allows her to manage her osteoporosis'.
• [35] The lawyers for the body corporate submit that it is not just and equitable to amend the access condition pending final orders because the decision to impose the access condition was made in accordance with the scheme's by-laws, which provide that the body corporate may impose reasonable conditions when granting approval for an animal. The by-laws do not, as the applicant contends, impose the access condition. It was the committee's decision many years ago that imposed the access condition pursuant to the by-laws. This condition balances the interests of all lot owners, including those who may have allergies, phobias, or other concerns regarding dogs in common areas.
• [36] The body corporate is correct that it is not the by-law itself that imposes the access condition. It is common knowledge that the decision to impose the access condition was made in accordance with by-law 20.3(n) which required owners to 'comply with any other reasonable conditions specified by the Committee'.[11] The question is whether the committee acted reasonably in refusing to respond to the request of 5 November 2024 to remove the access condition in light of the TSC report of 17 October 2024, which was provided to them.
• [37] The body corporate argues simply because the applicant is not happy with the committee for maintaining the access condition, does not mean the decision (referring to the committee's refusal to relax the access condition for the applicant, as communicated to them on 14 October 2024) was unreasonably made. It says there can be no likelihood of success where:

a) the letter from the physiotherapist (which was the only new evidence provided in support of the request made by the applicant) does not address the question of whether being required to use the ramp introduces a substantially higher falls risk for her compared to say when walking on stairs or on a public footpath[12]; > > b) the committee has taken all required steps to fairly and reasonably consider the application and any additional documentation provided by the applicant, with supporting evidence of such consideration; > > c) the approved access condition complies with the scheme's by-laws, Queensland regulations, and relevant safety standards; > > d) the implementation of the conditions is consistent with the scheme's by-laws, and the overarching best interests of all lot owners and occupiers; > > e) granting the applicant's request would establish an unreasonable precedent for the scheme, which could see a significant increase in approved dogs (potentially up to 50), undermining the committee's efforts to maintain fair and balanced management of the scheme.

• [38] The lawyers for the body corporate submit that other residents have expressed support for the body corporate's position and agree with the implementation of the by-laws relating to pets, underscoring the reasonableness and community backing of the current arrangements.
• [39] Both the applicant and the body corporate note that at the last AGM on 28 August 2024, there was a motion[13] to consider changing the conditions applying to all pet approvals as to the manner and direction of entry and exit to and from scheme land, such that the right of ingress and egress could be exercised:

a) By using the lifts to access the basement and then walking up the driveway to the exit and back down the driveway and into the basement lifts upon returning; or > > b) Exiting the lift at the ground floor, and then proceeding to exit by using 'the Furniture Door', and when returning entering via the 'Furniture Door' to the Lift Foyer and then entering the lift.

• [40] The minutes record the motion was defeated with 43 votes in favour (although the applicant says it was in fact 44 votes in favour) and 46 votes against.
• [41] I note that the AGM was held well before the TSC 17 October 2024 report and it is likely that all owners have not been made aware of that report.
• [42] I cannot fathom how the committee can insist on maintaining its position in light of the TSC 17 October 2024 report, by simply choosing to ignore it. In my preliminary view, having not responded (at this point in time, over 5 weeks later) to Michael Panayatov's email of 5 November 2024 specifically asking for the access condition to be relaxed in light of the TSC report and attaching the report, and insisting that the report is not relevant to my determination of this application for interim orders, demonstrates a failure to act reasonably.
• [43] I am satisfied that the applicant has raised a serious legal question for determination.

• [44] An adjudicator must balance the inconvenience of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused against the inconvenience of refusing relief now if final orders are ultimately granted. Particularly relevant is evidence that an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm.
• [45] The lawyers for the body corporate submit that the balance of convenience favours maintaining the current access condition and refusing interim orders. They say if interim orders are refused, the applicant will still be able to enter and exit the building using the designated shared access ramp. They say this route has been made safe with non-slip treatments and proper signage, and there is still no compelling evidence to suggest that the applicant will suffer irreparable harm by continuing to use this route while awaiting a final determination. Any inconvenience caused by using the access ramp in the interim period does not outweigh the broader concerns about maintaining fairness and consistent, yet tailored, application of the by-laws across all residents.
• [46] Conversely, the lawyers for the body corporate submit that if interim orders are granted, the applicant will be able to bypass the established access condition, undermining the body corporate's efforts to manage the scheme in accordance with its by-laws. This could set a problematic precedent for other pet owners and lead to further disputes regarding the enforcement of animal related by-laws. If final orders are ultimately refused, granting interim orders would cause unnecessary disruption to the status quo and may create tension between the applicant and other residents who are required to comply with the existing access conditions. This could also diminish the body corporate's authority in enforcing by-laws, leading to further non-compliance. They say there is no inconvenience to the applicant in continuing to use the shared access ramp, particularly since the body corporate has taken reasonable steps to improve safety. The applicant has previously used the ramp without any reported incidents, and there is no credible evidence that immediate harm will occur.
• [47] The body corporate's submissions regarding the balance of convenience are made in ignorance of the TSC 17 October 2024 report. That report is the basis for this application and cannot be ignored. It would not be just and equitable for me to determine this application without considering it. It concludes that 'the green path (driveway) is not a compliant path and is a major safety issue for all occupants....'
• [48] In light of the safety concern raised in the report, the balance of convenience clearly favours the making of interim orders.

• [49] The applicant requests a final order that the body corporate allow them and all resident dog owners to enter and exit the building through the ground floor lift foyer with their pets, but confine their request for an interim order to only the applicant being granted permission to enter and exit the building with their dog through the ground floor lift foyer and enter and exit towards the Gold Coast Highway and/or preferably enter/exit towards Laceys Lane using the compliant pedestrian ramp leading to the Laceys Lane exit to avoid serious and irreparable harm being done to her until a final order is made. The lawyers for the body corporate submit that the direction the applicant takes from the ground floor lift foyer (ie towards the Gold Coast Highway or Laceys Lane) is inconsequential.
• [50] The applicant has raised a serious legal question regarding the reasonableness of the committee's failure to acknowledge and/or respond to their specific request of 5 November 2024 for relaxation of the access condition in light of the TSC 17 October 2024 report. My preliminary view is that the committee has failed to act reasonably by not responding to Michael Panayotov's email of 5 November 2024 and failing to address the TSC report in responding to this application. I am of the view that the urgency and/or nature of the circumstances warrant interim relief, and the balance of convenience demands it. Further, I am of the view that the findings in the TSC report, which the committee has chosen to ignore, are applicable to all occupants, not just the applicant. On that basis, I have made an interim order that will cover all resident dog owners who have been given approval to keep a pet subject to the access condition that requires them to use the basement ramp to enter and exit the scheme.
• [51] The application for final orders will be determined in accordance with the act in due course.
• [52] I am aware that my colleague is issuing an order in another dispute concerning the access condition at Royal Palm[14]. In light of that decision, final orders in this matter may well be unnecessary.

[3] Application 0140-2022; conciliation certificate dated 18 March 2022

[4] Royal Palm [2022] QBCCMCmr 126

[5] Royal Palm [2023] QBCCMCmr 211

[7] Royal Palm [2024] QBCCMCmr 262

[8] Royal Palm [2024] QBCCMCmr 262 @ [86]

[11] Royal Palm [2023] QBCCMCmr 211 @ [4]

[12] Royal Palm [2023] QBCCMCmr 211 @ [26]