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

INTERIM ORDERS - whether interim orders are warranted

1. The application for interim orders is dismissed.

• [1] This application relates to 2 upcoming general meetings - an AGM scheduled for 3 December 2025 and an EGM scheduled for 12 December 2025.
• [2] The applicant is the current chairperson of the committee. She disputes the validity of the AGM and in particular, the budget that has been proposed. She says the budget fails to include funds for a building report to identify necessary roof works as a condition of the body corporate's insurance policy. The applicant also disputes the actions of the committee in convening the EGM at which a motion is proposed to remove her from the committee.
• [3] The applicant seeks interim orders to restrain the body corporate from proceeding with the AGM and EGM, until the application for final orders are determined.
• [4] The only issue at this time is whether interim orders are warranted.

• [5] San Christian Villas is a community titles scheme comprising 7 lots and common property. The scheme is registered as Survey Plan 131071 and is regulated by the Standard Module.
• [6] The application seeks final orders (in effect) as follows:
  1. An order declaring the AGM Notice (dated 12 November 2025) and all associated resolutions void, due to non-compliance with s160 of the Standard Module.
  2. An order declaring the committee's conduct, including the vote outside committee meeting (VOCM) to remove the applicant and the immediate issuance of the EGM notice, constitutes unreasonable conduct and procedural bias under s94(2) of the Act, and compelling the committee to cease all such unreasonable retaliatory actions.
  3. An order compelling the committee to approve the reimbursement of the adjudication application fee of $239.80 from the administrative fund to the applicant.
• [7] I am satisfied that this matter falls within the legislative dispute resolution provisions.[1] An adjudicator may make an order to resolve a dispute in the context of a community title scheme between a committee member and the body corporate about a claimed or anticipated 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]
• [8] The Commissioner has referred the application to me to decide whether an interim order is warranted. There is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from other parties before an interim order is decided.[4] In the circumstances, I gave the committee a brief period to respond to the interim order application.

• [9] 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.

• [10] The applicant says the AGM notice dated 12 November 2025 is defective as it fails to present a compliant budget. The applicant asserts that in proposing this budget, the committee has ignored known urgent financial liabilities. Specifically, she claims that the budget fails to provide for the engagement of a building consultant to develop a scope of works addressing all identified building and maintenance issues, including a comprehensive roof report, a condition required by the body corporate's insurer. The applicant says this omission risks the validity of the insurance policy. The applicant also claims the budget fails to allocate necessary and reasonable spending for known, essential common property roof repairs, despite the committee's prior knowledge of a $13,182.18 quote for this critical common property maintenance.
• [11] The committee submits that:
  1. the budget allows for reports to be obtained including a building inspection and sinking fund forecast to identify any defects;
  2. the budget will be reassessed after a building inspection is completed and any required work is identified. This information is not required for the AGM;
  3. an EGM is proposed for early 2026 to review the building inspection report once received and to prioritise any recommended maintenance and to plan the budget for these activities. Should any major or urgent repairs be required, a special levy can be proposed at that time.
• [12] Section 87 of the Standard Module sets out the requirements for a general meeting notice. Amongst other things, the notice must be given to each lot owner, state the time and place of the proposed meeting, contain an agenda for the meeting and be accompanied by documents as required under the Act or regulation module. The applicant claims the AGM notice is defective, but she has not demonstrated how the notice does not meet these requirements.
• [13] A body corporate must adopt an administrative fund and sinking fund budget each financial year.[5] Copies of the proposed budgets must accompany the notice of AGM.[6] There is no suggestion here that the body corporate's AGM notice did not include the proposed budgets. Rather, the applicant seems to suggest the AGM notice is defective as it fails to present a "compliant budget".
• [14] An administrative fund budget must:[7]

(a) contain estimates for the financial year of necessary and reasonable spending from the administrative fund to cover - > > (i) the cost of maintaining common property and body corporate assets; and > > (ii) the cost of insurance; and > > (iii) other expenditure of a recurrent nature; and > > (b) fix the amount to be raised by way of contribution to cover the estimated recurrent expenditure.

• [15] A sinking fund budget must:[8]

(a) allow for raising a reasonable capital amount both to provide for necessary and reasonable spending from the sinking fund for the financial year, and also to reserve an appropriate proportional share of amounts necessary to be accumulated to meet anticipated major expenditure over at least the next 9 years after the financial year, having regard to - > > (i)anticipated expenditure of a capital or non-recurrent nature; and > > (ii) the periodic replacement of items of a major capital nature; and > > (iii) other expenditure that should reasonably be met from capital; and > > (b) fix the amount to be raised by way of contribution to cover the capital amount mentioned in paragraph (a).

• [16] While the applicant believes the budgets do not adequately provide for necessary maintenance, at this stage she has not demonstrated how they do not meet the above statutory requirements. The applicant refers to a quote of $13,182.18 for essential roof repairs, however it is unclear whether this quote has been accepted by the committee or whether it is work that the body corporate must carry out in the current financial year. The committee has expressed that it wishes to wait until a building inspection report is obtained to determine which works are to be prioritised. If necessary, it says a special levy will be raised to cover the cost of urgent repairs.
• [17] In this regard, section 162 of the Standard Module provides:

(2) If a liability arises for which no provision, or inadequate provision, has been made in the budget, the body corporate must, by ordinary resolution - > > (a) fix a special contribution to be levied on the owner of each lot towards the liability; and > > (b) decide whether the contribution is to be paid in a single amount or in instalments and, if in instalments, the number of instalments; and > > (c) fix the date on or before which payment of the single amount or each instalment is required.

• [18] Based on the current submissions, I am not satisfied the application raises a serious legal issue with respect to the proposed budgets. Further, even if the budgets are defective in some way, this does not render the AGM notice invalid as the applicant claims. Nor would it justify an order to restrain the body corporate from proceeding with the AGM, or to invalidate all resolutions from that meeting. A potential defect in one aspect of a meeting does not nullify the whole meeting. The applicant has not presently identified any proper legal basis for the orders sought in relation to the AGM.

• [19] The second order sought relates to the calling of the EGM scheduled for 12 December 2025 which proposes a motion for the removal of the applicant from her position on the committee. The applicant asserts that the committee has taken this action in retaliation and in bad faith after she challenged the defective AGM notice. The applicant considers the committee is trying to silence her, as she is the only committee member challenging the body corporate's unlawful actions.
• [20] The committee says the calling of the EGM was not "retaliatory". Rather, the majority within the committee deemed this action to be necessary to counter the applicant's observed pattern of behaviour over the past 3 years which has been negatively impacting the body corporate's ability to function. Further, the committee says the VOCM and EGM followed all procedural requirements.
• [21] The body corporate has a statutory obligation to act reasonably in discharging its functions.[9] The committee must also act reasonably in making a decision.[10] A decision of the committee is a decision of the body corporate.[11] The onus is on an applicant to establish that the body corporate acted objectively unreasonably in all the circumstances.
• [22] The committee passed a VOCM on 20 November 2025 that an EGM be called for the purpose of removing the chairperson from the committee. There is no suggestion or evidence that the EGM was invalidly called. The body corporate is entitled to remove a member from the committee by ordinary resolution.[12] There does not have to be a reason given for such a removal. The applicant has not established a serious legal issue warranting an interim order to restrain the body corporate from proceeding with the EGM for owners to consider the motion.

• [23] The applicant submitted a motion to the committee on 17 November 2025 requesting reimbursement of the filing fee of $239.80 for the current adjudication application. The motion explains that this is an expense incurred (the lodgement of the application) to ensure the body corporate's compliance with legislation.
• [24] The committee decided against the motion.
• [25] The applicant says the fee was incurred to compel the body corporate to address the unlawful AGM notice, which protects all owners from significant legal and financial risk. The applicant asserts that refusing to reimburse this fee is an unreasonable decision intended to personally punish the applicant for attempting to fulfil the body corporate's duty to comply with the Act.
• [26] The committee says the applicant is acting as an individual and not on behalf of the body corporate. It does not believe there are any issues with the AGM notice or the EGM notice and says that all legislative requirements and processes have been met.
• [27] This application is brought by the applicant in her individual capacity as a member of the committee. It is not an application brought by or on behalf of the body corporate. In fact, the application is brought against the body corporate who has been named as the respondent. There is no evidence that the committee agreed to commence this application. The actions taken by the applicant appear to be of her own volition. In such circumstances, there appears no basis for the applicant's claim that she is entitled to a reimbursement of the application fee, or that the committee is acting unreasonably in refusing to reimburse her for such.

• [28] The applicant says orders are urgently required to prevent serious harm being:
  1. Nullification of insurance coverage if the AGM proceeds and the non-compliant budget is adopted; and
  2. "Irreversible political harm" in that the EGM scheduled for 12 December 2025 is a direct retaliatory act. Allowing the EGM to proceed will remove the only member challenging the committee's unlawful actions, thereby rewarding bad faith, eliminating internal governance checks and legitimising the committee's breaches.
• [29] There is no evidence that the body corporate will not comply with the insurer's conditions of approval. I note the committee says the budget allows for reports to be obtained including a building inspection and sinking fund forecast to identify any defects. Moreover, even if the AGM proceeds and the "non-compliant" budget is adopted, this does not immediately nullify the body corporate's insurance policy. It may simply mean that the budget needs to be adjusted or that a special levy will need to be raised for the body corporate to meet its obligations pursuant to the conditions of the insurance renewal.
• [30] In relation to the EGM, as I have stated above, while a body corporate must act reasonably, it does not need a reason to remove a member from the committee. Prima facie, there is no evidence that the committee is acting in bad faith to "legitimise its breaches" as claimed by the applicant. Further, the courts have acknowledged that the very detailed provisions of the body corporate regulations make non-compliance almost inevitable from time to time. Meetings and decisions of the body corporate are to be preserved despite minor errors or irregularities, unless it can be shown that the body corporate has acted unreasonably or that owners have been materially disadvantaged.[13]
• [31] In the circumstances, I can see no significant or irreparable harm being served by allowing the AGM and EGM to proceed.

• [32] For the above reasons, the application for interim orders is dismissed. The application is now referred back to the Commissioner to progress under the Act.
• [33] So far, the arguments and evidence provided by the applicant do little to substantiate any of her claims. The Act establishes an expectation of self management as an inherent aspect of community titles schemes.[14] 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. The applicant may wish to carefully consider the comments I have made and whether there is any basis to proceed with the final orders sought.

[5] Section 160(1) of the Standard Module

[6] Section 160(6) of the Standard Module

[7] Section 160(2) of the Standard Module

[8] Section 160(3) of the Standard Module

[12] Section 44(2)(f) of the Standard Module

[13] See Wei-Xin Chen v Body Corporate for Wishart Village CTS 19482 (Unreported, District Court of Queensland, Appeal 4080/2000, Bolton J, 29 May 2001)