SDW2 Pty Ltd v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd

• [2] The applicant believes an interim order is necessary to prevent "irreversible" changes. They also believe that the committee are progressing changes to the Community Management Statement (CMS) that may alter maintenance responsibility before the application for final orders is finalised.

• [3] The applicant seeks the following final outcomes:

1. An order the Body Corporate to reinstate the shade sail for Lot 7 on a "like-for-like" basis (matching function, appearance, quality, and waterproofing), to be completed within 60 days at the Body Corporate's expense.

2. A declaration that all motions passed in November 2024 and July 2025 attempting to shift responsibility for the shade sail, and all unreasonable conditions imposed by the committee, are invalid and unenforceable.

3. An order that the Body Corporate pay any costs incurred by the Applicant due to delay in reinstatement, including lost rental revenue.

4. Other Orders: Any other appropriate orders to ensure the Body Corporate complies with its maintenance obligations under Section 180 and acts reasonably and fairly toward Lot 7.

• [4] South Pacific Lodge CTS 16292 is a 20-lot scheme situated in New Farm. It is governed by the Accommodation Module. The applicant, Anita Nolan, is one of four co-owners of Lot 7.

• [5] The applicant is in dispute with the Body Corporate over the replacement of a shade sail in the Lot 7 Exclusive Use Area.
• [6] The applicant says the purpose of the interim application is to obtain an interim order to cease all related works and administrative changes until a final decision is reached, thereby preserving the status quo.
• [7] The applicant seeks final orders to compel the Body Corporate to reinstate a "like-for-like" shade sail at their expense due to its prolonged absence since February 2024. The core grounds for the dispute centre on the Body Corporate's alleged failure to meet its statutory maintenance obligations under Section 180.
• [8] The applicant also argues that the body corporate is attempting to shift maintenance responsibility to Lot 7, and thereby acting in an unreasonable and discriminatory manner.
• [9] Further, the applicant argues that the Body Corporate has passed motions and circulated misleading information to owners to evade responsibility, resulting in financial detriment, including lost rental revenue.
• [10] The core issue is the Body Corporate's refusal to reinstate the shade sail, which has been absent since February 2024 (approximately 20 months as of the application date). The Applicant contends that the shade sail is a Body Corporate asset for which the Body Corporate has a statutory and "historical" maintenance obligation.
• [11] The Applicant asserts that the Body Corporate is responsible for maintaining the shade sail because it has historically recognized and agreed to ownership of similar assets fixed to the building in Lots 7, 9, and 10. In 2013, the Body Corporate replaced the retractable awning in Lot 9.
  • [12] The applicant notes that under Section 180 of the Standard Module,[1] the body corporate is responsible for maintaining roofing structures and membranes that provide protection, regardless of whether they are common property, and the applicant argues that this responsibility includes maintenance of shade sails.
  • [13] The applicant says the Body Corporate Committee attempted to absolve itself of maintenance responsibility through motions passed in November 2024 and July 2025. These motions seek to pass maintenance, ownership, and responsibility for the replacement structure to the Owners of Lot 7. The Applicant argues that these motions, and the conditions imposed are contrary to the Act and should be declared invalid. Specifically, it is argued that a condition making Lot 7 solely responsible for future replacement or removal of the approved structure, is inconsistent with Section 180(1) and is discriminatory treatment compared to other similar structures.
  • [14] The Applicant says that she consistently requested a "like-for-like" reinstatement of the original waterproof sail structure. However, the Committee introduced new design constraints, such as requiring the replacement sail to be "not attached to the building". These new constraints deviate from the original configuration, materially affecting the ability to obtain comparable quotes and increasing costs. The applicant believes that the suggestion that Lot 7 should pay for these committee-imposed deviations is unreasonable.
  • [15] The Applicant contends that the explanatory notes provided for the AGM voting papers contained erroneous and misleading information that may have unfairly biased the voting outcome. Examples include statements about the original sail not damaging the fascia, misleading characterizations of Lot 7's actions as occurring without Committee knowledge and claims regarding the sail's waterproofing or structural failures.

• [16] Pursuant to my investigative powers under section 271 of the Act, the body corporate committee was invited to make submissions regarding the interim outcomes sought by the applicant.
• [17] The Committee understands that the Applicant seeks an interim order under section 279 of the Act to "cease all further works including modifications, structures, concrete works to the Lot 7 Exclusive Use Area by the Body Corporate and any updates to the CMS and By-laws". It responds to the application as follows.

Is the Interim Order requested by the applicant necessary?

• [18] They say the requested interim order is not necessary because:

(a) the Body Corporate is not undertaking works in Lot 7,

(b) it does not have any plans to undertake any works in Lot 7,

(c) it has not taken steps to register changes to the CMS which affect the Lot 7 Exclusive Use area in any way.

Does the applicant have an urgent need for an Interim Order?

• [19] The applicant claims that the need for an Interim Order is urgent because:

(a) It is alleged that the committee has already issued motions to erect a structure in accordance with committee requirements and pass ownership, and responsibility for maintenance to the Owners of Lot 7. It is claimed that this was ratified at the July 2025 AGM.

(b) It is alleged that the Committee is actively progressing Community Management Statement (CMS) changes that may alter maintenance responsibility for the shade sail at Lot 7. They refer to an email from Strata Dynamics dated Thursday,18 September 2025, calling for Motion 1 to engage a service to update the CMS.

• [20] The respondent says the applicant's claim in support of urgency misrepresents and omits relevant facts. The applicant included Motion 13 (a) on the 2025 AGM agenda seeking reinstatement of the shade structure in Lot 7, including an unreasonable and unachievable laundry list of benefits they believe they are entitled to receive from the Body Corporate, without submitting a properly costed proposal and/or quote on which the Body Corporate could vote.
• [21] The Committee assumes that the "motions to insert a structure" referred to in their application are:

(a) offers made in writing to the applicant by the Committee, which have lapsed, and

(b) the alternative motion that the Committee put to the Body Corporate at the 2025 AGM in opposition to Motion 13(a) which was submitted to the AGM by Lot 7.

• [22] At the AGM, the Body Corporate adopted the Committee's alternative Motion 13(b) which allows the Committee to act in the interests of the Body Corporate to make decisions about the reinstatement of the sail under conditions which consider the interests of Lot Owners who will have to pay for Lot 7's shade structure over the wish list of the Owners of Lot 7 for a structure with features and benefits that are stated as "required" by Lot 7.
• [23] In the view of the committee, some of the features "required" by Lot 7 conflict with the interests of the Body Corporate and amount to significant lot improvements.
• [24] It says the body corporate's concerns about lot 7's demands were clearly explained in the Explanatory Notes to Motion 13 (b) and in correspondence sent to lot 7 prior to the AGM. The Committee has no intention of imposing a solution to the issue on Lot 7.
• [25] Since the Committee has been unable to make headway towards a reasonable compromise, it is up to Lot 7 to offer a solution which satisfies them and is also in the interests of the Body Corporate.
• [26] The applicant's claim that the Body Corporate has taken action to alter responsibility for the shade structure is entirely false. The applicant claims that the Committee is attempting to alter maintenance responsibility for the shade structure and cites as evidence for this claim an email sent from Strata Dynamics to the Committee.
• [27] The committee says that none of these changes to the CMS affect anyone's interests in Lot 7's exclusive use area, nor the exclusive use areas in any other lots.
• [28] The Committee notes that the Body Corporate has been unable to register the changes to the CMS approved by Special Resolution at the AGM, because the Titles Queensland Registry now requires a higher standard for Building Plans than they are currently able to provide. It will be necessary for the property to be resurveyed and for BUP 103922 to be redrawn and re-registered before any further changes to the CMS may be registered.
• [29] However, the Committee notes that the Exclusive Use By-law 21 in the existing CMS already provides that the Lot Owner has maintenance responsibility in their allocated exclusive use areas. The Committee further believes that this maintenance responsibility extends to any Body Corporate asset provided in the exclusive use area.
• [30] The Committee says there is therefore no necessity or urgency for the Adjudicator to issue an interim order preventing the Body Corporate from making changes in the Lot 7 Courtyard, or changes to the CMS. It therefore asks that no Interim Order be issued by the OBCCM. It is also willing to engage in a departmental conciliation with the applicant.

• [31] The applicant seeks the following interim order:

To cease all further works including modifications, structures, concrete works to the Lot 7 Exclusive Use Area by the Body Corporate and any updates to the CMS and By-Laws that relate to the disputed matter, until a final adjudication decision is made.

• [32] Section 276(1) of the Act provides that:

An adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances (including a declaratory order) to resolve a dispute, in the context of a community titles scheme, about-

(a) a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the community management statement; or

(b) the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under the Act or the community management statement; or

(c) a claimed or anticipated contractual matter about-

(i) the engagement of a person as a body corporate manager or service contractor for a community titles scheme; or

(ii) the authorisation of a person as a letting agent for a community titles scheme.

• [33] An order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting, in a way stated in the order (section 276(2)). An adjudicator's order may contain ancillary and consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate (section 284(1)).
• [34] Further, section 279 provides that:

(1) The 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 to which the application relates.

Examples

1. The adjudicator may stop the body corporate from carrying out work on common property until a dispute about the irregularity of proceedings has been investigated and resolved.

2. The adjudicator may stop a general meeting deciding or acting on a particular issue until it has been investigated and resolved.

(2) An interim order

(a) has effect for a period (not longer than 1 year) stated in the order; and

(b) may be extended, varied, renewed or cancelled by the adjudicator until a final order is made; (c) may be cancelled by a later order made by the adjudicator; and

(d) if it does not lapse or is not cancelled earlier, lapses when

(i) the application is withdrawn; or

(ii) the commissioner gives the person who made the application a written notice under section 241 rejecting the application; or

(iii) a final order is made by an adjudicator to whom the application is referred. ...

• [35] As outlined above, the applicant is seeking both interim and final orders. The only issue at this time is whether an interim order is warranted. Any order granted must be just and equitable.[2] An interim order will not be granted unless it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[3] The examples in the Act indicate the usual circumstances where an interim order might be made is where an applicant is seeking injunctive relief. An applicant must establish that there are urgent circumstances to warrant an interim order rather than a desire to expedite the resolution of the dispute.
• [36] In order to make an interim order, an adjudicator must be satisfied an applicant has established that it has a prima facie case[4] and the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief.[5] That is, 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. Of particular relevance is evidence that an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm.
• [37] The case of SDW2 Pty. Ltd. V JLF Corporation Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 1 provides some guidance as to when it would be appropriate to make an interlocutory injunction at paragraph [21]:

The legal principles governing the disposition of an application for interlocutory injunction were discussed by me in Stacks Managed Investments Ltd v Tolteca Pty Ltd [2015] QSC 234 at 3 to 5 and again in Tribal Health Pty Ltd v Flush Fitness Pty Ltd [2016] QSC 103. In the latter case I summarised relevant principle in these terms (at [23]):

(a) The law in Australia has long regarded it to be necessary to make two main inquiries: (i) whether the applicant has shown that it has a prima facie case; and (ii) whether the applicant has shown that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the relief claimed.

(b) The significance of the requirement that a prima facie case be shown is elaborated upon in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 572 and Live Earth Resource Management Pty Ltd v Live Earth LLC [2007] FCA 1034 at [11] to [13].

(c) The considerations brought to bear on the balance of convenience requirement were the subject of discussion in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill and Bowen Central Coal Pty Ltd v Aquila Coal Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 334, the latter case clarifying that the adequacy of an award of damages and the question of the sufficiency of the usual undertaking were to be considered as part of the totality of the balance of convenience question.

(d) The progression of the two main inquiries is not a mechanical exercise. Whether the relief sought is prohibitory or mandatory, the Court should take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to have been "wrong" in the sense of granting an injunction to a party who fails to establish his right at an ultimate trial, or in failing to grant an injunction to a party who succeeds at trial. In making that decision, the Court should weigh in the balance all relevant factors, including matters pertaining to the strength of the case to be tried and the balance of convenience.

(a) there are urgent circumstances.

(b) there is a prima facie case of sufficient merit to justify relief; and

(c) the balance of convenience between the parties justifies the order.

• [39] The applicant says that the Committee has issued motions to install a sail structure of its own choice in the lot 7 exclusive use area. They also believe that the body corporate wishes to pass ownership and responsibility for maintenance to the owners of Lot 7. They also believe that the Committee is progressing changes to the Community Management Statement (CMS) that may alter maintenance responsibility for the shade sail at Lot 7.
• [40] There appears to be some uncertainty on the part of the body corporate regarding ownership and responsibility for replacement of the shade sail in lot 7, as this is not specifically referred to in the by-laws contained in the CMS.
• [41] While it is clear that the lot 7 shade sail was installed before purchase by the current owners, it is not clear whether it was installed by a previous lot owner, or by the Body Corporate or was in place when the building was repurposed from being a motel. In the absence of evidence to resolve this question, the Body Corporate has assumed that the shade sail is part of the common property. It does so on the basis that it was probably in place when the building was used as a motel prior to repurposing as a residential body corporate.
• [42] The Committee says that in 2022 it became evident that the lot 7 shade sail was in need of repair or replacement. It approved its replacement in May 2022, using a PVC fabric and original fixing points, with an additional aluminium strip pinning it to the fascia.
• [43] However, in February 2024, the new PVC sail was damaged in a storm. The lot owners removed it to try to have it repaired but the Committee was eventually informed that the PVC fabric was torn in several places and could not be repaired.
• [44] It later emerged that the PVC fabric had been installed with insufficient fall to prevent water collecting on the sale in heavy rain. The weight of the accumulated water caused the PVC sail to burst. The event also caused damage to the fascia of the building, which was attributed to the unsuitability of the PVC fabric for a sail in this location.
• [45] The Committee advised the owners of Lot 7 that it has the authority to approve the design, specific location, material, and colour of both the sail and the frame. The committee believes that a permeable fabric, rather than a waterproof fabric, should be used, and it should be durable for a period of twenty years. To date, the sail has not been replaced.
• [46] In accordance with by-law 21 contained in the Community Management Statement dated 7 June 2017, Lot 7 is entitled to exclusive use of an area of common property marked "T" in the attached plan, comprising 64 square metres.
• [47] By-law 21 reads as follows:

The Owners for the time being of lots 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 and 20 shall be entitled to the exclusive use for themselves and their invitees of those parts of the Common Property as identified on the Plan annexed hereto and marked "A" to "U" in Schedule E. Each Owner or Occupier shall maintain the said part of the Common Property in a state of good repair order and appearance.

• [48] The Committee notes that the Exclusive Use By-law 21 already provides that the Lot Owner has responsibility for maintenance of their allocated exclusive use area. The Committee further believes that this maintenance responsibility extends to any Body Corporate asset provided in the exclusive use area.
• [49] This matter was considered by the committee in November 2024 and the minutes of a motion voted on outside a committee meeting on 21 November 2024, records the following[6]:

Committee Motion 1 - Offer of Payment - Lot 7 MOTION CARRIED

THAT the Body Corporate Committee for South Pacific Lodge resolves to offer payment to the Owner(s) of Lot 7 totaling $5,000, as a reasonable contribution towards the replacement of the failed shade sail in the Lot 7 exclusive use courtyard, with an approved structure.

AND FURTHERMORE, THAT acceptance of the above offer must be made in writing to the body Corporate Committee via the Strata Dynamics office on the signed Acceptance Form, provided with the offer.

AND FURTHERMORE, THAT the payment offered to the owner(s) of Lot 7 is subject to the following conditions of acceptance, which will be effective from the date of installation of an approved structure inside the Lot 7 exclusive use courtyard.

(a) On accepting the payment, the Owner(s) of Lot 7 also accepts both ownership of and maintenance responsibility for any approved structure, installed now and/or in the future inside the Lot 7 exclusive use courtyard.

(b) From the date of installation of an approved structure, the owner(s) of Lot 7 will make no claims against the Body Corporate's building insurance policy for any event during which the approved structure is damaged or causes any damage or injury to any property or person whatsoever.

(c) The owners of Lot 7 will submit a Lot Improvement Application which addresses the following requirements:

(i) The approved structure must be installed without any attachment to the building (to avoid damage to the building).

(ii) The height of the approved structure must not rise above the midpoint of the ceiling/floor boundary structure between Lots 7 and 17 (to avoid loss of amenity to Lot 17).

(iii) The upper surface of the materials of the approved structure must be non-reflective (to avoid loss of amenity to Lot 17)

(iv) The colour of the approved structure must be consistent with the building colour scheme and the colour of the approved structure must be identified in the Lot Improvement Application for approval by the Committee. The Committee reserves the right to reject a colour that is inconsistent with a planned colour scheme or an approved colour scheme.

(v) The approved structure will be maintained by the Owner(s) of Lot 7 in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations for its lifetime.

(vi) At the end of the approved structure's lifetime, the owner of Lot 7, as the owner of the approved structure, is solely responsible for the replacement or removal of the approved structure.

(vii) The above conditions will be disclosed to prospective buyers of Lot 7 by the Body Corporate on any request lodged with the Strata Manager for a Disclosure Statement

Committee Motion 2 - Conduct of Remedial Works - Lot 7

In the event that Lot 7 does not accept the offer of payment of $5000 and ownership of the approved structure in the Lot 7 Exclusive Use Courtyard, and the conditions attached to the offer in Committee Motion 1, then the Body Corporate Committee resolves:

THAT the Body Corporate will install an approved structure of its own choice in Lot 7, which meets conditions in Committee Motion 1 A((c) (i) - (iv)), following the Owner(s) of Lot 7's acceptance in writing to the Committee of the following conditions:

(a) From the date of installation of an approved structure, the Owner(s) of Lot 7 will make no claims against the Body Corporate's building insurance policy for losses arising from any event during which the approved structure is damaged or during which it causes any damage or injury to any property or person whatsoever.

(b) For the lifetime of the sail the Owner of Lot 7 will comply with a Schedule of Maintenance consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations, to be given to the owner(s) in writing by the Committee.

(c) The Body Corporate will not replace the sail at its expense for a period of twenty years from the date of installation.

(d) The above conditions will be disclosed to prospective buyers of Lot 7 by the Body Corporate on any request lodged with the Strata Manager for a Disclosure Statement.

• [50] It is not strictly correct for the applicant to state that "the committee has already issued motions to erect a structure in accordance with committee requirements and pass ownership, and responsibility for maintenance to the Owners of Lot 7".
• [51] Pursuant to committee resolution 1 on 21 November 2024, (above) the body corporate wrote to the applicant on 27 November 2024, stating:

Following the lengthy review and deliberation by members of the Body Corporate Committee towards the reinstatement of the Shade Sail to the Exclusive Use Courtyard to lot 7, please find enclosed a copy of the Minutes of motions voted by the Committee for your reference.

The Committee look forward to your written response to the resolutions within 7 days of this communication.

• [52] In summary this was an offer to pay the owners of Lot 7 $5,000 as a reasonable contribution towards the replacement of the failed shade sail in the Lot 7 exclusive use courtyard. This offer was subject to numerous conditions.
• [53] However, no response was received from the applicant within the specified 7-day time period and therefore the offer lapsed.The matter was therefore dealt with at the AGM held on 28 July 2025. The minutes of the AGM record that two Same Issue Motions were considered regarding reinstatement of the shade sail.
• [54] The minutes of the AGM held on 28 July 2025 record the following:

Motion 13. Reinstate Shade Sail - Lot 7 Group of Same Issue Motions

13.a. Option an Ordinary Resolution - Proposed by Owner, Anita Nolan, Lot: 7

That the Body Corporate agree to reinstate the shade sail for Lot 7 with the following conditions:

• 'Like for like condition' OR better AND
• waterproof AND
• structures will not impede the door operation AND
• within 30 days AND
• at the Body Corporates Committee expense

13.b. Option B - Ordinary Resolution - Proposed by Committee

That the Body Corporate authorise the Committee to select and install a shade structure for installation in the Courtyard of Lot 7 under the following conditions:

1. The structure will provide shade in the Lot 7 Courtyard.
2. The structure must be entirely detached from the building.
3. The cost to the Body Corporate of the structure, including installation, will not exceed.

$6,000 without further authorisation by the Body Corporate at a General Meeting.

1. The Committee will document the exact specifications and features of the new structure and hold them on Body Corporate record for a period of at least twenty years.
2. The structure may be replaced by the Body Corporate after a period of twenty years if replacement is authorised at a Body Corporate General Meeting.
3. The Owner(s) of Lot 7 is/are responsible for all maintenance of the structure for a period of twenty years from the date of installation of the structure.
4. The Committee may order maintenance on the structure at the Lot Owner(s) expense if maintenance is neglected or inadequate.
5. Enhancements to the structure may be permitted at the expense of the Owner(s) of Lot 7, subject to Committee approval of an Application for Lot Improvement.
6. Approved enhancements to the structure are the maintenance and replacement. responsibility of the Owner(s) of Lot 7.
7. Damage caused to the structure or the Common Property by Lot Owner(s)' enhancements are the maintenance, remediation and replacement responsibility of the Owner(s) of Lot 7.

• [55] The body corporate has therefore resolved to select and install a shade structure for installation in the Courtyard of Lot 7 and to replace it after 20 years, on the basis that ongoing maintenance of the shade sail will be the responsibility of the applicant. They say the shade sail is not a "roofing membrane" as claimed by the applicant, and they do not propose to unconditionally approve substantial expenditure of Body Corporate funds to improve the Lot 7 courtyard to install an all-weather outdoor living space that connects with the interior of their Lot.
• [56] At this point in time, I am not convinced that the body corporate has an obligation to replace the shade sail, although I note that it has offered to do so. Also, my preliminary view is that it is unlikely that the shade sail is a "roofing membrane" or "roofing structure".
• [57] Further, not only does by-law 21 provide that "Each Owner or Occupier shall maintain the said part of the Common Property in a state of good repair, order and appearance" but also subsection 182(2) of the Accommodation Module provides as follows:

(2) An exclusive use by-law is taken, in the absence of other specific provision in the by-law for maintenance and operating costs, to make the owner of the lot to whom exclusive use or other rights are given responsible for the maintenance of and operating costs for the part of the common property to which the exclusive use by-law applies.

• [58] However, I am not in a position to finally determine this issue at this point in time. Further I do not believe that the interim order sought by the applicant is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances.

(a) It is not undertaking works in Lot 7,

(b) It does not have any plans to undertake any works in Lot 7, and

(c) It has not taken steps to register changes to the CMS which affect the Lot 7 Exclusive Use area in any way.

• [60] The applicant also seeks the interim order because they believe the Committee is actively progressing changes to the CMS that may alter maintenance responsibility for the shade sail at Lot 7. As evidence for this claim, it cites emails sent from Strata Dynamics to the Committee including an email dated 18 September 2025 which relevantly read as follows:

Committee, please find below motion for voting for the appointment of Stratify to conduct the update of the CMS as adopted at the AGM.

That Andrew Suttie of Stratify Legal be authorised to prepare, execute and lodge a new CMS to implement the motions approved at the AGM held on 28 July 2025 and to do all things necessary (including answering any requisitions) to record the new CMS at the Queensland Titles Registry.

• [61] However, I can see no proposed amendments to the CMS which would operate to alter responsibility for the shade structure. The emails referred to concern changes to the CMS relating to resolutions on Motions 9, 10 and 11 at the AGM held on 28 July 2025, whereby it was proposed to amend by-laws.
  • Motion 9 relates to amendments to by-law 2 concerning Noise and behaviour.
  • Motion 10 relates to amendments to by-law 5 concerning Motor vehicles, bicycles and parking.
  • Motion 11 sought to include a new By-law 23 which relates to Rechargeable Lithium-ION vehicles, conveyances and batteries.
• [62] None of these changes to the CMS affect anyone's interests in Lot 7's exclusive use area, nor the exclusive use areas of any other lots.

• [63] In light of the above, I am not satisfied that the interim order sought by the applicant is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates. I can see no indication there will be any harm to the applicant's case to consider the issues she has raised in the context of final orders.
• [64] I have dismissed the applicant's request for an interim order. The dispute will now be referred back to the commissioner.[7]
• [65] In the first instance, I will recommend that the Commissioner refer this matter to departmental conciliation. It may be that some or all of the matters are able to be resolved by agreement between the parties.

[1] I believe this scheme is regulated by the Accommodation Module

[4] Also described as a serious question to be tried.

[5] SDW2 Pty Ltd v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 001

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats [2001] HCA 63

[6] See page 25, Attachment D - "AGM Pre‑Reading and Explanatory Notes".