The body corporate for Signature Court CTS 31415 (applicant)

Sections 227(2) and 229(3)(a) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), applying the Act and the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2008 (Standard Module).

EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE - whether the proposed spending is required to meet an emergency.

Act, s 243A; Standard Module, s 151(1).

1. I hereby authorise the committee of the body corporate for Signature Court CTS 31415 to engage Eldred Construction Services Pty Ltd to undertake the works stated in the quotation dated 9 November 2015 at a cost not to exceed $16,720.00 (inclusive of GST).

[1] At the extraordinary general meeting dated 27 February 2015[1], the body corporate approved a tender analysis by SW Consult (SWC)[2] for the façade rectification and roof repairs, engaged Eldred Construction Services Pty Ltd (ECS) to carry out the repairs and some additional works and fixed special contributions to be levied on owners.

[2] On 19 October 2015, SWC reported to the body corporate on notified leaks into Units 8 and 10. SWC referred to earlier "leaks and defects within the complex" and the work carried out by ECS. It is said that on 15 September 2015, Steve Hickey of SWC and John Eldred of ECS investigated water ingress into Unit 10, and on 24 September they investigated leaks into Unit 8. SWC reports that "a hidden slab extended past the end wall of the balcony of Unit 10 and that water was travelling under the end wall of Unit 10, across the slab then running over the end and front of the slab before filling the back of the ceiling cornice in Unit 8 and the hallway cornice". SWC recommends refurbishing the balcony of Unit 10 including "removal and replacement of tiling and waterproofing of the concrete slab" that had not already been re-waterproofed by ECS.

[3] On 9 November 2015, ECS quoted $16,720 to carry out balcony waterproofing.

[4] On 19 November 2015, the committee decided to make this application because the quoted amount is above its spending limit of $6,000 and it considers emergency waterproofing to the balcony is necessary.

[5] The commissioner referred the application to me under section 243A of the Act.

[6] Sections 151 to 153 of the Standard Module provide for the control of spending by a body corporate. The committee cannot give effect to a proposal involving spending above $6,000 unless authorisation of the nature mentioned in section 151(1) is given. I may approve the spending if I am satisfied it is needed to meet an emergency.[3]

[7] The committee submits the issue of the damage to the roof and balcony of the building has been an ongoing problem for the body corporate. It refers to its February 2015 engagement of ECS to repair the building façade and roof. The committee says that SWC and ECS found, on further investigation, that more waterproofing works were required to the balcony of Lot 10 that is above Lot 8.

[8] I am satisfied from the October 2015 SWC report that the waterproofing or roofing membrane on a balcony of Lot 10 is defective. For this scheme[4], the body corporate has a statutory duty to maintain the membrane in good condition as, given the SWC report, it provides protection for at least Lot 8.[5] The quote also makes provision for replacing balcony tiling. The body corporate is also responsible for re-tiling the part of the lot to be waterproofed.[6]

[9] The committee says the spending in the ECS quote exceeds its spending limit. In this circumstance, the committee would normally take the maintenance issue to a general meeting. But at least 21 days notice of the meeting must be given to lot owners.[7] The committee argues the waterproofing work described by SWC and quoted by ECS is urgent given the approaching storm season.

[10] The legislation does not define 'emergency'. The ordinary meaning of the word is, "A situation...that arises unexpectedly and requires urgent action..." (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary).

[11] I am satisfied from the committee's submissions that the identification of the additional work arose unexpectedly. It is apparent the committee reacted quickly to the identification of the problem and the SWC advice. It is also relevant that the body corporate had already engaged ECS to do work of a similar nature on or about the building.

[12] On balance, I am satisfied there is sufficient basis to make an order to override the usual right of owners to vote on this expenditure proposal. On the basis of the committee's submissions, I am satisfied an emergency situation has arisen in the scheme and that the quoted spending is required. The committee has explained the steps it proposes taking next year to fund the work.

[13] For these reasons, I have made an order authorising the committee to engage ECS to undertake the works mentioned in the 9 November 2015 quote.

[3] Act ss 227(2) and 276(1) and Standard Module s 151(1)(c).

[4] As SP151173 is registered under building format.

[5] Standard Module s 159(2)(a)(iii).

[6] Klinger & Anor v Body Corporate for Costa D'Ora Units [2007] QDC 300.

[7] Standard Module s 74.