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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS - A motion to engage a body corporate manager failed at last year's AGM, yet a motion to engage that same body corporate manager is on the agenda this year. Owners sent two quotations for alternative body corporate managers to the committee last year, but those quotations are not on this year's agenda. The applicant argues the proposal to engage the body corporate manager is at odds with last year's decision, and the owners' alternative quotations should be put to owners. She asks that the body corporate is prevented from acting on a decision to engage the body corporate manager while these issues are decided.

Act, s 279(1); Accommodation Module, ss 76(5), 163.

• [1] Ms Stewart of lot 304 is concerned about two motions to be considered at an annual general meeting at 3pm this afternoon:

1. motion 9 proposes engaging Australian Unit Administration (AUA) as body corporate manager for one year for $7,200 + disbursements, and 2. motion 10 proposes that the body corporate:

(i) does not renew its contract with AUA pursuant to a decision made at the 2024 AGM > > (ii) obtains quotations from other management companies, and > > (iii) presents the quotations to owners for a decision.

• [2] Ms Stewart apparently believes the present motion 9 is contrary to the body corporate's decision on motion 9 at the 2024 AGM, which also proposed engaging AUA for one year and failed with 15 votes in favour and 19 against. She also seems to believe that the body corporate should have presented quotations for alternative body corporate managers that were submitted to the body corporate committee by owners last year.
• [3] Ms Stewart seeks a final order in the following terms:

To allow the body corporate to have the 2 quotes already submitted to replace strata manager AUA.

• [4] Until her application can be decided, she seeks interim orders she describes as:

Vote 9 in the voting papers it effects motion 10 which allows for alternatives

Vote 9 allows no options it just quotes AUA as the only option

Vote 9 Denies our rights to vote for an alternative strata manager as was voted in the 2024 AGM votes

Harm continues being that the strata manager refuses to supply requested documants and video of incidents in the building

That the video has to be requested from AUA as a direction from the committee when AUA only work business hours and incidents recorded on the security system are not available. Already there has been 3 incidents that no video records have not been available for

1. For interim order to interdict in the 2025 year has 2 motions on the same issue listed AUA motion listed as number 9 the lot owners motion number 10 same issue but number 9 invalidates number 10

2. A secret Ballot called after 7 or more days after the Stratamax voting was up from 28/2/25 to 28/3/25

3. The votes to be returned to AUA not the returning officer which is what is required

4. The collusion that has occurred since the 24 agm where AUA were voted out and the committee decided to ignore the vote give them month to month tenancy

5. Since the 2024 AGM both AUA and committee have breached multiple bylaws and Regulations

6. Ongoing harm the constant waste of body corporate funds at this time for example aua and committee have a BCCM application in against the body corporate for the second time utilising lawyers .The first attempt was thrown out and I believe the current one will be as well as it includes illegal items such as extending balustrades over restricted common property

7. Other example as to waste money 1.pressure washing down a leaky building not put to the body corporate to vote against 2. Refusing to supply documents asked for particularly work order and invoice to establish the amount spent on lawyers on their attacks on us Stratamax shows $43,00 last year and $9,000.00 this year.

8. They Have changed lawyers with no reference to the Body corporate

• [5] I am only concerned with the application for interim orders at this stage, which can be made if warranted by the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[1]
• [6] The interim orders as described by the applicant appear to largely consist of criticisms of the committee and body corporate manager. Nevertheless, Ms Stewart's underlying concern is that motion 9 will be decided today and might be given effect before her application can be decided. AUA might be engaged despite the 2024 decision and without considering the alternative quotations submitted by owners. I expect Ms Stewart would like an interim order to prevent the implementation of motion 9 while her application is decided.
• [7] However, an interim order is only appropriate where an applicant raises serious legal questions with genuine prospects at final orders; sometimes described as a prima facie case. Ms Stewart's argument that this year's motion 9 is contrary to the decision on last year's motion 9 is misconceived. By voting down last year's motion 9, the body corporate decided against engaging AUA for 2024-25. It did not make any decision about whether it would engage AUA in 2025-26 as proposed by the present motion 9.
• [8] Ms Stewart's argument that two quotations submitted by owners should be presented at today's AGM also lacks force. Owners are entitled to submit motions for consideration at a general meeting, and those motions must be included on the agenda of the next practicable meeting.[2] But there is no indication that owners submitted a motion to engage the alternative body corporate managers. Ms Stewart says only that they emailed the quotations to the committee in 2024. She does not say why the committee was then obliged to put them to owners at the 2025 AGM. It is not even clear that was the owners' intention when sending the quotations. They may have thought the committee would be seeking alternative body corporate managers for 2024-25 following the failure of motion 9. I note that one quotation was for a one year term commencing 1 November 2024.
• [9] The body corporate would be obliged to present at least two quotations if motion 9 proposed expenditure above the "relevant limit for major spending".[3] By default, the relevant limit for major spending is the lesser of $10,000, or $1,100 x the number of lots at the scheme.[4] Ms Stewart says Sentosa Waters has 50 lots, so the limit is likely to be $10,000. But motion 9 only proposes spending $7,200 on AUA.
• [10] Ms Stewart has not established any genuine likelihood that motion 9 will be found invalid at final orders, nor that the body corporate is obliged to present owners' alternative quotations to the AGM. I cannot make interim orders in these circumstances. The application must wait to be decided in some months' time after owners and the committee have had the opportunity to make submissions.[5]
• [11] Of course, it is possible that motion 9 will fail again this afternoon, and motion 10 will succeed. If that happens, AUA will not be engaged for 2025-26 and the body corporate will be under a clear obligation to obtain alternative quotations and present them to owners. There may be no need to persevere with the application if that occurs.

[2] Accommodation Module, s 76(5).

[3] Accommodation Module, s 163.

[5] Act, s 243.