MAINTENANCE; REASONABLENESS - The applicant is concerned the body corporate is repairing defects at owner expense that should be repaired by the builder under warranty. She wants maintenance resolutions overturned, levies reimbursed, an application lodged with the Queensland Building and Construction Commission, and an administrator appointed.

Act, ss 94(1)(a) & (2), 242; Standard Module, ss 162(2), 173, 180(1); Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991, s 72A(4).

1. Motions 2 and 3 of the extraordinary general meeting held on 25 June 2025 are void.
2. The application is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] Ms Kozik wants the body corporate to have the builder rectify various defects at Saltaire, rather than attempting to resolve them itself in a piecemeal fashion at owners' expense. She disputes the validity of motions 2-4 of an extraordinary general meeting on 25 June 2025 that proposed:
  1. installing a roof for $18,800 "in front of and above the elevator shaft" on the rooftop "to prevent further flooding of the elevator shaft and water damage across multiple floors" (motion 2)
  2. waterproofing a planter box outside lot 1 for $14,602.50 "to prevent further flooding of Unit 1 and reduce the risk of concrete cancer above the garage" (motion 3), and
  3. raising a special levy of $60,000 ($3,000 per lot) to fund the above and "to serve as a reserve fund in case of further works of common property...To contract both a building defect expert and a solicitor to present a claim to the builder via the QBCC, with the objective to recover past and current repair costs." (motion 4)
• [2] Ms Kozik is not confident that the body corporate will manage to raise the defects with the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) within six years and six months of the time the building was completed in 2020. After that, the QBCC can no longer issue the builder with a direction to rectify defective building work.[1] She wants an independent administrator to manage the issue.
• [3] Ms Kozik seeks orders in the following terms:

Order 1 - That all resolutions of the extraordinary general meeting (EGM) held on 25 June 2025, in respect of Motions 2, 3, and 4, be declared void, invalid, and of no effect. > > Order 2 - That the Body Corporate immediately lodge a Direction To Rectify (DTR) with the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) against the builder, Mr Paul Graham of Hiview Design and Constructions Pty Ltd (Associate of Jireh Resources Pty Ltd), as per QBCC Assistant Commissioner's letter dated 3rd September 2025. > > Order 3 - That Adele Henrick, Director and owner of Strata Place, be appointed to perform the powers of the Committee and the Body Corporate Manager as administrator for a period of 3 months. > > Order 4 - That all builder defect-related expenses, including improper special levies, misuse of the sinking fund, and all additional Stratacare charges connected to defect-related work orders from 2021 to 2025 inclusive, be reimbursed to owners in full. > > Order 5 - That all Saltaire owners receive a copy of the Adjudicator's Orders within seven (7) days of determination.

• [4] Ms Kozik makes many criticisms of these motions, but it is unnecessary to deal with all of them. Motions 2 and 3 were irregular if for no other reason than they failed to offer owners a choice between at least two quotations for the proposed work. That is a requirement when a general meeting motion proposes expenditure above the "relevant limit for major spending".[2] At a scheme with 20 lots like Saltaire, the limit is $10,000 by default.[3] The body corporate committee confirmed the body corporate has never resolved to change it.
• [5] In response to my inquiries, the committee submitted copies of additional quotations considered by the committee. That was insufficient. The quotations should have been put to owners as a group of same issue motions so owners could choose between them.[4]
• [6] For that reason, I will declare motions 2 and 3 void as sought.
• [7] But I do not see that motion 4 should likewise be declared void. The body corporate is required to raise a special levy "if a liability arises for which no provision, or inadequate provision, has been made in the budget".[5] It is undisputed that there are unmet maintenance needs at Saltaire, including in the elevator shaft and planter box. These things are common property that the body corporate has a statutory obligation to keep in good condition.[6]
• [8] Ms Kozik would rather the body corporate had the builder fix them. Maybe it will; that is presently unknown.
• [9] Either way, it is not disputed that the body corporate's liability for the condition of the common property has been enlivened and the body corporate claims to lack the funds to address it, noting at motion 4 that:

...the Sinking Fund Report prepared in 2021 anticipates the Sinking Fund should have an anticipated closing balance around $80,000.00, with the fund currently holding $21,000.00.

• [10] The body corporate has already incurred the cost of the work proposed by motions 2 and 3, some additional costs for emptying and refilling the planter box, and the cost of the "building defect expert" foreshadowed in motion 4. That accounts for most of what was raised pursuant to motion 4, and it is common ground that there are many other defects still to address. The parties largely only differ as to whether the body corporate should be undertaking the work itself.
• [11] If the body corporate is able to have the builder carry out some of the anticipated work at no cost to owners, then perhaps not all the money raised pursuant to motion 4 will be required. In that case, it will remain in the sinking fund and owners will be required to contribute less in future. The money will not be lost or wasted.
• [12] For the time being, it was reasonably open to the body corporate to anticipate that it might need further funds to address the many defects evident at the scheme and raise a special levy for that purpose.

Whether the body corporate must lodge a direction to rectify

• [13] The body corporate's obligation is to keep the common property in good condition.[7] It is under no specific obligation to seek redress from the builder, including via the QBCC.
• [14] The body corporate must act reasonably in the exercise of its functions though.[8] Those functions include administering the common property for the benefit of the lot owners.[9] There could be a question whether the body corporate is reasonably administering the common property for the benefit of owners if it is asking them to fund repairs that ought to be made by the builder.
• [15] However, the body corporate does not appear to be disregarding the possibility that it could have the builder address the defects. The body corporate previously sought QBCC intervention in 2023, engaging a lawyer to assist it. A QBCC inspector attended the scheme. The body corporate's lawyer advised in March 2024 that the QBCC inspector declined to direct the builder to rectify any of the 39 defects identified at that time because:

a. some complaint items related to things which were not building work; > > b. some complaint items were the same or related to other complaint items; > > c. many complaint items were withdrawn - for example, QBCC building inspector's report says that the complaints relating to unit 4, 7, 16, and 20 were all withdrawn ... > > d. some complaint items had been rectified; > > e. in relation to some complaint items, there was insufficient evidence to reveal any obvious defective construction practices; and > > f. in relation to some complaint items, an agreement had been reached between the builder, the body corporate, and the owner of units 9 and 12...[10]

• [16] The body corporate has since engaged a building consultant who in August 2025 reported 339 defects. The committee chairperson recently met with the builder to discuss them, and subsequently held an information session with owners.
• [17] The body corporate has not yet managed to have the builder remedy any defects, but that is not the requirement. The body corporate must act reasonably. By engaging a lawyer, then a building consultant, meeting with the builder, meeting other owners, lodging one unsuccessful application with the QBCC and now, armed with fresh evidence, contemplating another, the body corporate appears to be meeting that requirement. It is exploring the possibility of having the builder remedy defects at the scheme in a serious-minded, evidence-based, logical fashion.
• [18] I will not order the body corporate to seek a direction to rectify from the QBCC because it is under no specific legal obligation to do so. It must simply act reasonably while making its own decisions about how best to ensure the common property remains in good condition. I am not satisfied that it is not.

• [19] Ms Kozik seeks the appointment of an administrator to exercise the powers of the body corporate for three months and oversee the implementation of orders 2 and 4. I will not make that order for several reasons:
  1. I am not making orders 2 and 4.
  2. While Ms Kozik may disagree with how the body corporate is addressing defects at the scheme, I would only appoint an administrator to exercise all powers of the committee where the committee was shown to be so dysfunctional that it could not operate within statutory requirements. That sort of pervasive dysfunction is not in evidence.
  3. Even if I was satisfied that the present committee was not up to the job, the body corporate is due to hold an annual general meeting to elect a new committee within the next three months.

• [20] Ms Kozik wants "all builder defect-related expenses" incurred by the body corporate from 2021 to 2025, including disbursements paid to the body corporate manager, to be refunded to owners. I will not make that order because:
  1. It is too broad. I do not know the circumstances of every item of maintenance expenditure in that period.
  2. Decisions to raise levies or carry out maintenance should have been challenged within three months.[11]
  3. Ms Kozik's central complaint is that all these expenses could have been borne by the builder. That is untested at this stage. But even if it was true, sometimes circumstances may mean that it is reasonable for the body corporate to carry out the work itself rather than wait while the QBCC process runs its course. For instance, the body corporate says its insurer would not pay for repairs to the building caused by water entering the elevator shaft until a roof was built to prevent the problem reoccurring, with the result that the lift did not operate for 13 weeks. The body corporate's building consultant reported that the roof has not resolved the problem, but that does not mean it was unreasonable for the body corporate to act on the advice of its insurer to restore the lift to operation.
  4. The money has been spent. An order in these terms could force the body corporate to levy its members to raise the money to reimburse them.

Whether this order must be distributed to owners

• [21] I see no compelling reason the body corporate should be required to circulate this order to all owners within seven days.
• [22] Ms Kozik says:

Owners have been kept uninformed of disputes, defects, and the risks associated with improper levies and fire safety compliance.

• [24] Motions 2 and 3 of the June EGM were invalid for failure to offer owners a choice between at least two quotations. The body corporate should put a motion to a general meeting requesting ratification of the irregular expenditure. That should include the expenditure on emptying and refilling the planter box, which should have been included in motion 3 and was also subject to the requirement to provide at least two quotations:

if a series of proposals forms a single project, the cost of carrying out any 1 of the proposals is taken to be more than the relevant limit for major spending for the scheme if the cost of the project, as a whole, is more than the relevant limit.[12]

• [25] The application will otherwise be dismissed. Ms Kozik has not satisfied me that the body corporate is failing to act reasonably in its administration and maintenance of the common property, including with respect to original construction defects that might be repaired under warranty by the builder.

[1] Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991, s 72A(4).

[3] Standard Module, Schedule 1, "relevant limit for major spending".

[8] Act, s 94(2).

[9] Act, s 94(1)(a).

[10] James Morgan, Mahoneys, email to Brigitte Martin, Stratacare, 15 March 2024.