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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS - whether the body corporate is acting unreasonably by threatening to tow the applicant's boat and trailer, parked in breach of the by-laws for "many months"; whether the body corporate should be restrained from towing the boat and trailer until the application can be decided.

Act, ss 58, 94(2), 100(5), 279(1).

[1] Mr Hogan of lot 3, Sovereign Shores, says he cannot keep his boat in his marina berth until the berth is repaired, so he kept it on a trailer on the street "for many months prior to January 2026". The body corporate committee for Salacia Waters, the principal body corporate, says the boat and trailer were parked on the street from approximately February 2025, aside from a stint on vacant lot 2 around the time of Cyclone Alfred that ended when the body corporate for Sovereign Shores wrote to Mr Hogan to ask that he remove them because they were parked in breach of the by-laws. Mr Hogan then returned the boat and trailer to the street.

[2] The caretaking service contractor for Salacia Waters wrote to Mr Hogan on 9 January 2026 and asked him to remove the boat from the street. He wrote back, explained why he had the boat on the street, and referred to breaches of the parking by-laws by others. The caretaker said he would forward Mr Hogan's comments to the committee, reassured him that other parking infringements were also being addressed, and suggested he park the boat in his driveway.

[3] The committee for Salacia Waters issued by-law contravention notices to Mr Hogan in relation to the boat and trailer on 13 and 30 January 2026. The first required that he cease his contraventions within seven days, though Mr Hogan says he was unaware of the notice until after the expiry of that period as he was overseas. The second required that he cease his contraventions within 48 hours or the boat and trailer would be towed and stored at his expense.

[4] Mr Hogan says he moved the boat back onto lot 2 on 2 February 2026 at the suggestion of a member of the Salacia Waters committee, only for another member of the same committee to tell him that was unacceptable. He wrote to the committee seeking clarification and was told that parking the boat on the vacant lot was still a breach of the by-laws. The committee said the boat would be towed without further notice if not removed from lot 2 by close of business on 4 February, as it would if returned to the street.

[5] The Body Corporate for Sovereign Shores wrote to Mr Hogan on 3 February also alleging a contravention of the by-laws. It asked him to remove his boat from lot 2 within 24 hours.

[6] Mr Hogan believes the bodies corporate are acting unreasonably, contrary to section 94(2) of the Act. He seeks final orders in the following terms:

1. A declaration that the Body Corporate's decision to issue a towing threat with less than 24 hours' notice on 3 February 2026 is unreasonable and a breach of its duty under Section 94 of the Act.
2. An order that the Body Corporate must comply with its own 'Breaches of Parking Bylaws and Towing of Vehicles' policy (dated 31 January 2026), which requires a 'final written warning' before towing.
3. An order that the Applicant be granted a reasonable temporary accommodation (until 28 February 2026) to relocate the vessel once essential safety repairs to the Applicant's marina berth are completed.
4. An order that the Body Corporate reimburse the Applicant for the filing fee of this application.

[7] Mr Hogan is concerned that his boat will be towed and he will incur towing and storage fees before his application can be decided. To guard against that risk, he seeks an interim order:

... that the Body Corporate for Salacia Waters CTS 42044 and Sovereign Shores CTS 52021, whether acting jointly or severally, its committee and it's agents (including the caretaker and any contracted towing company) be restrained from towing, removing, or otherwise interfering with the boat and trailer (registration 098UTO) currently located on the scheme land or adjacent road, pending the final determination of this application.

[8] I am only concerned with the interim order at this stage, which will be granted if warranted by the nature and urgency of the circumstances.[1] Mr Hogan must raise serious legal questions with prospects of success at final orders to qualify for an interim order, and the balance of convenience must favour the interim order sought.

[9] Bodies corporate must act reasonably in the exercise of their functions, and their committees must act reasonably when making decisions.[2] Of relevance to the present dispute, their functions include administering the common property and enforcing the by-laws.[3]

[10] The by-laws relied upon by the bodies corporate are found in the community management statement for Salacia Waters. By-law 25 in the community management statement for Sovereign Shores requires owners and occupiers within that scheme, such as Mr Hogan, to comply with the by-laws of the principal body corporate. The Act also states that a community management statement for a subsidiary scheme has effect subject to the community management statement for the principal body corporate.[4]

[11] The Salacia Waters contravention notices of 13 and 30 January, when the boat was still parked on the road, said Mr Hogan was in breach of the following by-laws:

21. Car Parking

21.1.3 Subject to By-law 21.1.5, the Occupier of a Lot must not, without the Body Corporate's written approval:

21.1.3.1 park a vehicle or allow a vehicle to stand, on the Common Property other than in a designated car park;

21.1.3.2 permit an invitee to park a vehicle, or allow a vehicle to stand, on the Common Property other than in a designated visitor car park.

21.3 Use of Caravans etc

An Owner or Occupier of a Lot must not:

21.3.1 permit any caravan, campervan, mobile home, boat or trailer upon the Common Property or upon his lot unless it is housed in a garage and is not visible from any part of the Common Property;

21.4 Towing

21.4.1 If an Owner or Occupier of a Lot or invitee allows a vehicle to be parked in a manner which is in contravention of this By-law, then such vehicle may be towed by the Principal Body Corporate (at the direction of the Committee) and such costs will be the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle.

21.4.2 For the purpose of this By-law, the Committee may enter into an appropriate agreement with a towing company (contractor) to provide a vehicle towing service.

21.4.3 The Committee may authorise the erection of appropriate signage on the Common Property to advise all drivers of vehicles on to Scheme Land of the regulation of unlawful parking on the Common Property.

[12] "Vehicle" is defined as "any type of car, motor bike or other form of transport", which comfortably encompasses a boat and the trailer used to transport it. Mr Hogan does not claim to have had body corporate permission to leave these items upon the common property, so he was plainly in breach of by-law 21.1.3.1.

[13] He was also in breach of by-law 21.3.1 by permitting his boat and trailer to be upon the common property.

[14] When Mr Hogan moved the boat and trailer to a vacant lot, the Salacia Waters committee maintained he was still in breach of by-law 21.3.1, presumably because the boat and trailer were upon a lot but visible from common property and not housed in a garage. But the by-law says an owner or occupier must not permit such items "upon his lot" unless housed in a garage and not visible from the common property. Mr Hogan put them on someone else's lot. Strictly, it is the owner of lot 2 who is in breach of by-law 21.3.1, assuming they are permitting the boat and trailer to be parked on their lot.

[15] Nevertheless, Mr Hogan allowed the boat and trailer to be parked in contravention of the by-law, enlivening the possibility it will be towed by the principal body corporate pursuant to by-law 21.4.1.

[16] Mr Hogan believes it would be unreasonable to tow his boat and trailer because:

1. the Salacia Waters committee ignored his email explaining why the boat was on the road then issued a by-law contravention notice on the day that he travelled overseas
2. the Salacia Waters committee escalated to a towing threat after he failed to act on the 13 January contravention notice despite knowing he was away during that time
3. Salacia committee members gave conflicting advice about whether he should move his boat to the vacant lot
4. he was not given a final written warning as required by Salacia's towing policy, and
5. trailers stored on other vacant lots in contravention of the by-laws have not attracted similar enforcement action.

1. There is no evidence the Salacia Waters committee "ignored" Mr Hogan's email of 10 January 2026. The email did not request a response. It was reasonably open to the committee to insist on compliance with the by-laws notwithstanding Mr Hogan's reasons for contravening them, particularly after almost a year. In fact, by-law 21.3.1 does not allow the body corporate any scope to excuse a breach.

There is also no evidence the committee knew Mr Hogan was leaving the country on the day it sent the contravention notice. The notice was sent by email in any event.

1. By the time of the 30 January towing threat, Mr Hogan's boat and trailer had been parked in breach of the by-laws for nearly a year. The caretaker had asked for them to be removed, a contravention notice had been issued on 13 January that also mentioned the possibility of towing in the event of continued non-compliance, and a committee member had spoken to Mr Hogan's father-in-law and mentioned the possibility of towing. Yet the trailer and boat remained on the road in breach of the by-laws. A further, firmer contravention notice does not strike me as falling outside the range of reasonable actions available to the body corporate in those circumstances.
2. Mr Hogan had previously been advised by the Sovereign Shores committee that he could not park his boat on lot 2. That has now been reiterated by the committees for both bodies corporate and a further ten days have passed. I do not see that it would be unreasonable to enforce the by-laws in the face of Mr Hogan's continuing non-compliance, notwithstanding any brief confusion that may have arisen around 2 February.
3. The Salacia Waters committee circulated a notice to owners on 31 January 2026 that mentioned towing may be authorised where there have been repeated breaches and the owner has received prior contravention notices and a final written warning. Mr Hogan received contravention notices on 15 April 2025 and 13 and 30 January 2026. The second two notices warned the boat may be towed. A further email from the Salacia Waters committee on 3 February 2026 warned the boat may be towed from lot 2 if not removed by close of business on 4 February. I fail to see any inconsistency between the committee's circular and its actions with respect to Mr Hogan's boat and trailer.
4. The only evidence submitted in support of this claim is two photographs of a trailer on lot 8 on 20 October 2025 and 3 February 2026. On the other hand, the committee submitted copies of correspondence to other owners about boats, jet skis, and trailers parked in breach of the by-laws. It also submitted a more recent photograph showing the trailer on lot 8 now removed after the committee raised it with the owner. There is little evidence that Mr Hogan is unreasonably being singled out by the body corporate.

[18] I do not foresee much likelihood that I will accept at final orders that the body corporate has acted unreasonably in its attempts to have Mr Hogan address his longstanding breaches of the parking by-laws, including by threatening him with towing if he fails to comply. In those circumstances, it would be inappropriate to restrain the body corporate for several months while the application proceeds through the submission process and is investigated and decided. Accordingly, the application for an interim order is dismissed.