MAINTENANCE - where there was water ingress to the applicant's lot from a blocked or damaged air conditioner condensate drain - whether the body corporate is responsible for the repairs to the drain or the lot - COSTS - whether the application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance - whether a costs order is warranted.

Act, ss 20, 205, 270; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 201

1. The application is dismissed under section 270(1)(c) of the Act on the basis that it is misconceived and without substance.
2. Within 30 days of the date of this order, the applicant, Steven Pattison, must pay the Body Corporate for Sky Gardens the amount of $2,000 as partial compensation for its loss arising from this application.

• [1] This application is about the responsibility for an air conditioning condensate drainage pipe.
• [2] The applicant says they reported water ingress in their Lot 1424 to the body corporate in February 2025. This appears to have arisen from a blocked or damaged drainage pipe associated with an air conditioner in the lot. The applicant argues the body corporate has failed to maintain drainage infrastructure in a wall cavity, causing water ingress, mould, and structural damage to the lot. The applicant acknowledges the pipe in question only services their lot. But they assert its location in a cavity wall means it is a body corporate responsibility. They say the body corporate has not arranged inspection, remediation, or compensation despite notice and the risks of mould exposure. They indicate they have undertaken partial repairs themselves because of the lack of action by the body corporate.
• [3] The applicant seeks orders for repairs and compensation for costs they have incurred.
• [4] The first question in this dispute is whether the body corporate is responsible for the maintenance of the drainage pipe. If it is, there are questions about whether orders are warranted for particular works and compensation sought.

• [5] Sky Gardens community titles scheme 261693 (Sky Gardens) is a 116-lot scheme in Upper Mount Gravatt. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Accommodation Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plans 261693 and 261695.
• [6] The application seeks the following orders:
  1. Remedial and Preventative Orders

1. That the Body Corporate for Sky Gardens CTS 48874 be ordered to undertake or authorise immediate repairs and preventative rectification of the defective HVAC condensate drainage infrastructure which caused prolonged water ingress into my unit.
2. That the Body Corporate be ordered to ratify repairs already undertaken by me to mitigate risk and prevent further structural damage or health impact to occupants, given the inaction and/or delay by the Committee.
3. That the Body Corporate be ordered to facilitate and finance all pending repair works to internal wall cavities and insulation compromised by the prolonged water ingress.

(Schedule 5, Item 11 - Unreasonable Contributions/Costs)

1. That the Body Corporate be ordered to compensate me for expenses incurred as a direct result of its failure to maintain and act upon known building infrastructure faults. The total compensation sought is:

a. Paid Insurance Excess to Suncorp (Claim Date: 13 May 2024) $600.00

1. All Trades Contracting Services QLD - Jet clean, drain diagnosis, wall cavity inspection and plaster repairs (Invoice 10962, dated 08 May 2025) $1,892.77
2. Pending Wall Cavity Repair (Quote dated 17 May 2025, Patch & Paint Australia)

• [7] An adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances to resolve a dispute about a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the CMS, or the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or the CMS.[1] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions.[2]

• [8] The applicant initially applied for conciliation of the dispute in March 2025.[3] The parties participated in conciliation in April and reached a partial agreement providing for further investigation. However, that did not resolve the dispute.
• [9] This application was lodged on 14 May 2025. The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicant on some aspects of the application,[4] which was amended.[5]
• [10] The Commissioner invited submissions from the committee and all owners.[6] Three submissions were received. The applicant obtained and responded to the submissions.[7]
• [11] The application was referred to department adjudication.[8] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing the submitted material and seeking further information from the applicant.[9]

• [12] The body corporate opposes the application. Its submission includes:
  1. The applicant has not met the legal or evidential burden in respect of their allegations.
  2. It agrees the pipe only services the lot. It denies the wall cavity is common property. It says it is an internal wall of the lot.
  3. The air conditioner and associated pipe is not common property where it is solely related to supplying utility services to a lot, is within the boundaries of the lot, and located other than in a boundary structure.
  4. Regardless, the air conditioner and associated pipe is utility infrastructure that the applicant is responsible for.
  5. The inaccessibility or otherwise of the pipe is not a consideration in determining maintenance responsibility. In any event, the pipe was accessed and repaired.
  6. Whether the pipe was damaged during the original construction is not a consideration in the determination of maintenance responsibilities. The respective maintenance responsibilities extend to the rectification of original defective construction.
  7. The air conditioner and the associated pipe, and the consequential loss and damage from that not being maintained in good condition, are the applicant's responsibility.
  8. It gave the applicant the records it held and is unable to provide the applicant with records it does not hold.
  9. The applicant does not evidence a request to access a complete copy of the leak detection report it obtained, and paying the requisite fee for that, but in any event no order is sought about that.
  10. The legislation cited is either not relevant or incorrectly paraphrased. The applicant cites 8 decisions of which only 2 exist and those have no relevance to the determination of the application. It suggests the applicant may have used artificial intelligence to prepare the application, which is known to 'hallucinate' case citations.
  11. It took reasonable steps to investigate whether it had any maintenance responsibilities and informed the applicant it was not responsible, giving a factual and legislative basis for that. The applicant maintains a position not supported by the facts or the law.
  12. The application should be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance. $2,000 costs should be awarded where it has incurred greater costs.
• [13] A lot owner submits they have been affected by water damage over several years which, following a leak investigation in February 2025, was identified as originating for a pipe on common property.[10] They allege body corporate failures and say that matter is not resolved.
• [14] The applicant forwards an email from another resident who said they have twice had mould on their ceilings. The applicant asserts this shows a broader pattern of water ingress and mould.
• [15] The applicant provides a response to the submissions which includes:
  1. It has been repeatedly shown the water ingress originated from a failed or crushed common property condensate drain, improperly installed, and concealed behind a common wall adjoining a service duct.
  2. They deny the drain is a lot owner responsibility. The issue is outside the boundary of Lot 1424 and so not within their control. They say responsibility falls to the body corporate where the infrastructure lies outside the boundaries of the lot and it services more than one lot or exists within common property.
  3. They deny there is no evidence of damage,[11] and refer to evidence provided.
  4. They refute an 'implied assertion' there was no delay by the body corporate.
  5. They deny the assertion that there was no structural damage.[12] They assert the wall and floor damage due to moisture damage is 'structural and material', requiring plaster repair, repainting, mould remediation and reflooring, and replacement carpets.
  6. They deny an allegation that they failed to cooperate with inspections.[13]
  7. They allege a failure to maintain common property, and a failure to inspect, remediate or acknowledge the infrastructure failure.
  8. They say this is clearly a shared building infrastructure defect, but the body corporate fails to mention other complaints. They say multiple independent experts have confirmed the problem lies in the building infrastructure.
  9. No independent contactor or engineer report was submitted to refute theirs and no building-wide investigation or expert rebuttal was commissioned.
  10. They allege an improper use of owner levies to defend this application.
  11. The drainage issue was not caused or modified by the lot owner.
• [16] The response also alleges statements in the submissions that I am unable to identify.

• [17] Having reviewed the submitted material, I wrote to the applicant seeking clarification of several matters. I sought copies of documentation referred to in the application and reply but not previously provided. I sought copies of the case law cited in the application and reply. I sought confirmation of the location of the air conditioner and condensate drain. I also invited comment on the claim for costs. I will note the responses below.

• [18] In deciding this dispute, I will first note the legislative maintenance responsibilities. I will then consider the responsibilities in the current circumstances. Then, if the body corporate has responsibility, I will consider the damage and the orders sought.
• [19] I will note at the outset that the way in which the application has been presented, including repetitive and contradictory material and confusing references to the evidence, legislation, and case law, impeded the determination of this application. I will comment further on that below.

• [20] Maintenance responsibilities in a body corporate are affected by the boundaries of lots and common property.
• [21] Sky Gardens is shown on the survey plan as an 11-storey building with residences on Levels C to K. The scheme is registered as a building format plan of subdivision (BFP). The applicant's Lot 1424 is one of 7 lots located on Level G, with each including a deck.
• [22] In a BFP type of survey plan, the boundaries are defined by the structural elements of a building, including the floors, walls, and ceilings. Where a lot is separated from another lot or common property by a floor, wall or ceiling, the boundary is the centre of the floor, wall, or ceiling.[14] If part of a lot is outside a building structure (such as a deck), its boundaries are also usually defined by structural elements. If there is no upper structural element, the upper boundary will be defined by the extension of the ceiling of the adjoining structure on the lot.[15]
• [23] The legislation determines that all utility infrastructure at a scheme is common property, unless one of the legislative exceptions exist.[16] 'Utility infrastructure' includes cables, wires, pipes, sewers, drains, ducts, plant and equipment by which lots or common property are supplied with utility services.[17] 'Utility services' specifically include air conditioning and drainage.[18] Utility infrastructure is not common property if it is solely related to supplying utility services to a lot, and is within the boundaries of the lot as defined in the plan of subdivision, and is located other than in a boundary structure for the lot.[19] A 'boundary structure' means a floor, wall or ceiling (other than a false ceiling) in the boundary of the lot with another lot or common property.[20]
• [24] The legislation then sets out detailed provisions about maintenance responsibilities. Notions of what might be considered 'fair' are not relevant to the application those provisions.
• [25] A lot owner must maintain their lot in good condition, except for those aspects that are the body corporate's responsibility to maintain.[21] Notably, a lot owner must maintain utility infrastructure that is within the boundary of the lot and not common property, in good condition, except where it is the body corporate's responsibility to maintain.[22]
• [26] A body corporate must usually maintain common property in good and structurally sound condition.[23] In a BFP a body corporate also has various additional responsibilities to maintain certain things in the boundary between a lot and common property, foundation structures, roofing structures providing protection, and essential supporting framework.[24]
• [27] The legislation includes some exceptions to the general principles about a body corporate's maintenance responsibilities. Most relevantly for present purposes:
  1. A body corporate is not responsible for fixtures and fittings installed by an occupier for their benefit.[25]
  2. The owner of a lot is responsible for maintaining utility infrastructure, including utility infrastructure located on common property, if it only relates to supplying utility services to the owner's lot and it is an identified type of utility infrastructure. The identified types include air-conditioning systems.
• [28] The statutory responsibility for maintenance can encompass preventative maintenance, maintenance arising due to 'wear and tear', maintenance required because of poor or defective design or construction, and replacing something that can no longer be repaired.
• [29] The ease of accessibility of an element of a lot or common property is not relevant to the question of who is responsible for it under the legislation. Whether an insurer covers damage under a policy of insurance taken out by the body corporate or an owner or occupier is not relevant to the question of who is legally responsible for maintenance under the legislation.[26]

• [30] On 16 January 2025 Service Today/All Trades Contracting Services QLD attended Lot 1424. An invoice noted the 'master bedroom split system' was overflowing with water. The contractor was unable to find the drainage outlet but took steps to clear the drain blockage.
• [31] The applicant claims they obtained a report from a 'private HVAC technician' dated 13 February. The applicant variously claims the report confirmed the issue originated from a building-level drainage blockage and not a fault within the lot or the air conditioner. No such report was provided when requested.[27] It appears from the most recent description of the contents of the alleged report that the applicant may be referring to the 16 January report. However, the findings that the applicant claims were made are not described in that report.
• [32] In the application, the applicant claimed to have submitted the 13 February report to the body corporate with notification of the water ingress and suspected mould on 14 February. When I requested clarification, the applicant says the leak was first reported to the body corporate manager on 24 February. I am unable to identify any such correspondence.[28] However, on 13 February a representative of Lot 1424 emailed the building manager noting their bedroom air conditioner was leaking and asking where the pipe exited so their repairman could fix it.
• [33] The applicant corresponded with the body corporate throughout March. They said the ongoing air conditioning leak had caused significant damage to the main bedroom wall and carpet. They alleged the issue stemmed from a drainage system problem in the building, and a failure of drainage or blockage maintenance by the body corporate. They provided quotes for carpet repairs and requested the body corporate pay for that. It appears that from the start the body corporate indicated the issue appeared to be an owner responsibility.
• [34] The body corporate apparently engaged a plumber, Draincare, to investigate leaks in the building. It notified the applicant of Draincare's attendance. Draincare's invoice says it attended on 26 March, but Lot 1424 did not answer so it was not possible to inspect the lot. The invoice referred to Draincare inspecting (or attempting to inspect) leaks in 14 other locations. None of the descriptors of the other leaks refer to issues with a condensate drain.
• [35] The applicant applied for conciliation in late March. Conciliation was conducted in late April.
• [36] Calibre Air Pty Ltd then attended the lot. Its invoice dated 30 April said it inspected the bedroom air conditioner following a report of the system leaking water. It said it appeared the drain was leaking within the wall cavity potentially due to a broken or cracked fitting. It recommended cutting the wall behind open to identify and repair the leak.
• [37] On 6 May Australian Leak Detection inspected the lot and provided a report. It undertook thermal imaging and, after ascertaining the 'common factor' as the air-conditioner, it ran and tested the air conditioners. It suggested the condensation line may be blocked or leaking. It suggested cutting an inspection opening for further investigation.
• [38] The body corporate then said it would engage a plumber as recommended to cut the wall to enable further inspection. It said the outcome would determine the responsibility for the costs.
• [39] On 8 May, Service Today/All Trades Contracting Services QLD attended the lot. Its invoice says it investigated the HVAC system for current and potential faults, undertook a jet clean of the wall split air conditioner to ensure the water drained properly, and repaired plaster. The applicant subsequently supplied a different version of this report than that included in the original application or in the body corporate's submission. The subsequent version included a statement that on the contactor's initial inspection it had observed significant water damage on the carpet and wall directly below the left side of the indoor unit and recommended cutting open the wall to investigate further. It then said that once access was gained, "it became evident that the original installer had routed the drain incorrectly resulting in it being crushed y the steel door frame and pierced by a screw." It said that was rectified to resolve the drainage problem.
• [40] In May the applicant also informed the body corporate of an insurance claim and that they had paid an excess. They asserted the water ingress source had been 'professionally identified as a blocked condensate drainage line located within common property infrastructure'.
• [41] On 14 May the chairperson confirmed previous advice that the maintenance of air conditioners was an owner responsibility. They noted the air conditioner and damaged pipe were identified as the cause of the leak by all contractors who attended. They said they air conditioner and piping were wholly within the boundaries of the lot and were not common property. They noted the internal walls in the lot were not common property or a boundary structure. They confirmed the body corporate was not responsible for any costs associated with the leak.

• [42] Although the application is somewhat confusing, it does not appear to be disputed that a water leak has occurred in the applicant's Lot 1424 that arose from a blocked or damaged condensate drainage pipe associated with an air-conditioner in the main bedroom of Lot 1424.
• [43] The applicant acknowledges the pipe in question only services their lot. But they substantively argue the pipe is embedded within a wall cavity which is common property, such that it is a body corporate maintenance responsibility. They further say the leak originated from a structural or installation defect and not owner misuse or poor maintenance.
• [44] The body corporate provides a floor plan of Lot 1424. It marks the air-conditioner location, consistent with the reports, invoices, and photographs. The marked location is in a bedroom on a wall between an adjacent bathroom and living area. Supplied photographs indicate the air conditioner is located over a doorway. The applicant confirms the accuracy of this plan.
• [45] I am satisfied on the evidence that the air conditioner is installed on an internal wall within the lot, and that the condensate drainage pipe for the air conditioner is located within that wall. I am satisfied the air conditioner and the associated drain solely service Lot 1424. I am satisfied the wall on which the air conditioner and associated drain are located is wholly within the boundaries of the lot. The wall cavity is not common property, and the wall is not a boundary structure with an adjacent lot or common property. Accordingly, while the air conditioner and associated drain are utility infrastructure, it is not utility infrastructure that is common property.
• [46] Moreover, even if the air conditioner and the drain were on or partly on common property or in a boundary wall, I am satisfied they are of a type that the legislation determines are not the responsibility of the body corporate.
• [47] I have been given no evidence the wall in question is a load-bearing wall. If it is, the body corporate would be responsible for maintaining it in structurally sound condition. But that does not mean it is responsible for maintaining anything on or in the wall. No evidence has been provided that the wall requires repair to be made structurally sound. If the water leak affected the structural integrity of the wall, the body corporate may have some responsibility to rectify it. But where that damage arose from something the applicant was responsible for, the applicant would be liable to the body corporate for any such rectification works.[29]

• [48] The applicant says the pipe was punctured by a construction screw and blocked with debris. They claim it was a 'latent concealed defect'. If that was the cause, the applicant has not explained why that could alter the legislative responsibility for the pipe. The applicant has not established the pipe was damaged by the body corporate or because of something it was responsible for. Where the air conditioner and pipe are inherently the responsibility of the applicant, the applicant has not established why the body corporate would be responsible for it regardless of the conduct of the owner or any broader design, installation, or building defect.
• [49] The applicant cites various cases and in response to my queries asserts (without further explanation) that the cases "...collectively establish that where: infrastructure or utility services are embedded within building structures; the defect arises from original installation or construction error; and rectification is not reasonably practicable by the lot owner..." then the liability and maintenance responsibility may rest with the body corporate under the Act. With respect, I can identify no such principles in the legislation or the cited case law.
• [50] The applicant has also not evidenced a building wide problem. The documents submitted simply do not include any such statements. The submissions and invoice from Draincare indicate water ingress issues in other lots. But on its face, they all appear to be in different locations within the lots and arising from different causes. Water ingress and leaks from a variety of sources are unfortunately common in bodies corporate. But the existence of leaks in different parts of different lots does not evidence a systemic issue. They do not necessarily evidence a pattern of building defects or inadequate maintenance. And even if every lot had a blocked or damaged condensate drain associated with their air conditioner, that would not of itself shift the legal responsibility for the maintenance of those drains to the body corporate.

• [51] I will comment briefly on some other matters raised by the applicant.
• [52] The applicant alleges breaches of record-keeping requirements but has not sought orders in that regard. They say their request for building schematics was denied. I am unable to identify specific correspondence to that effect. If the applicant sought records, they could make a written request and pay the prescribed fee.[30] If the body corporate held building plans of that nature, it would be required to provide a copy in response to a proper request. But if the body corporate was not given such plans by the original owner or had not retained them, it could not provide them. The applicant also refers to a full copy of a report not being provided. Again, the applicant has not evidenced that they requested a copy and paid the prescribed fee.
• [53] The applicant alleges the improper use of body corporate levies to fund the defence of this application. This allegation is not explained or substantiated. Prima facie, the body corporate is entitled to obtain legal advice and protect its interests in any legal proceeding brought against it. That decision, and the associated expenditure, would need to be approved by the committee or at a general meeting depending on the quantum. The applicant has not evidenced that the body corporate has not authorised expenditure on this occasion.

• [54] The Act provides that an adjudicator may dismiss an application if satisfied the application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance.[31] If an application is dismissed on one of those grounds, the adjudicator can award costs (up to a maximum of $2,000) incurred by a party for loss arising from the application.[32]
• [55] The body corporate asserts it took reasonable steps to investigate whether it had maintenance responsibilities in respect of the complaint and informed the applicant at the earliest possible time that it was not, giving the factual and legislative basis for that. It says, the applicant maintained a position not supported by the facts or the law despite that. Accordingly, it asserts the application should be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance. It sought costs and provided evidence of the costs it incurred.
• [56] The applicant did not initially respond to this. When I gave them a further opportunity to do so, they strongly denied it. They said the application was made in good faith following multiple attempts to resolve the dispute and is substantiated by multiple independent reports.
• [57] I acknowledge that maintenance responsibilities in a community titles scheme can be complicated at times. But in this case the application was entirely misconceived. It is not disputed the damage to the applicant's lot was caused by an air conditioning condensate drainage pipe located in a wall that is wholly within the boundaries of the lot. The applicant has simply not substantiated that the pipe or the wall are common property or a body corporate responsibility or that the damage arose from something the body corporate is responsible for. The applicant appears to have disregarded the body corporate's repeated advice that the pipe and the resultant damage was the applicant's own responsibility.
• [58] That misapprehension of the law would not of itself warrant an award of costs. The applicant is not legally represented and does not appear to have been previously involved in a dispute in this office. But other matters arise regarding the applicant's pursuit of this application.
• [59] The application was presented in a confusing and repetitive manner. The grounds include numerous assertions about the nature and cause of the leak and damage, and statements made by others, that were not substantiated by the evidence presented. The applicant cites quotes and reports that do not appear to exist or, if they do, the applicant has not produced them despite my requests.[33] The applicant cited incorrect or irrelevant provisions of the legislation on numerous occasions throughout the application, and mischaracterised those that were relevant. The applicant cited cases as precedent for various propositions, but those cases either do not exist or have little or no relevance to this dispute.
• [60] The applicant then appeared to ignore the body corporate's submission about the errors in the legislation and case law referenced and relied on by the applicant in the application. Moreover, the applicant's reply to the submissions cited 5 further cases in support of their position. Of those, one does not appear to exist at all, two do not say the things the applicant asserts they say, and one has a different case name and does not include the text the applicant quoted from it. One case is relevant to some extent,[34] but relates to circumstances where the utility infrastructure was outside the boundaries of the lot which is not the case here.
• [61] I queried the applicant on the cited case law and asked them to provide copies of all cases on which they now rely. The applicant then provided a new list of authorities. They provided copies of 5 cases and hyperlinks to a further 11 cases (some previously cited). But I am unable to identify the relevance of those decisions to the issues in this application or the position put forward by the applicant. Most of the cited cases are clearly irrelevant.
• [62] Also, in their reply to submissions, the applicant responded to statements they claimed were in the body corporate's submission but were not, and claimed statements were made in the other two submissions that are not there.
• [63] As such, this is not a case where there have been occasional inadvertent errors or oversights in the submitted material. Rather, there appears to be numerous and persistent misrepresentations of the relevant law and evidence. While this may be their first application, the applicant remains responsible for the contents and veracity of the material they submit.[35]
• [64] I asked the applicant if they used artificial intelligence (AI) to prepare the application. They responded that portions of the application and reply were prepared using tools for assistance with grammar and document structure only, but that all information, legal references, and technical evidence were sourced from verified reports, invoices, and correspondence. They said they independently verified all information generated or formatted using any digital assistance. They said miscited or incomplete references to case law were unintentional.
• [65] The Queensland Courts have produced a guideline on the use of generative AI by non-lawyers.[36] It explains that the information produced by generative AI can be inaccurate, incomplete, or out of date. It notes that generative AI chatbots can make up fake cases,[37] citations and quotes, refer to legislation that does not exist, and provide incorrect or misleading information about the law or how it might apply. It says a user is responsible for ensuring all information they rely on or provide to a court or tribunal is accurate. As such, a party must check the accuracy of any information obtained from a generative AI chatbot before using it.
• [66] The Federal Court recently ordered a law firm to pay indemnity costs after AI was used by a staff member to generate false or inaccurate document citations.[38] The court noted the use of AI in that manner had "...given rise to cost, inconvenience and delay to the parties and has compromised the effectiveness of the administration of justice."[39] The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal has similarly commented that including non-existent information in material filed weakens a party's arguments and raises questions about whether the material is accurate or reliable. They also noted it wastes time for tribunal members in checking and addressing hallucinations and wastes public resources_._[40]
• [67] If the applicant used AI or other sources in preparing the material they submitted, I am not satisfied they checked the accuracy of the information obtained. If the applicant has not relied on AI for the contents of the submitted material, then they do not even have even that excuse for the innumerable errors and misrepresentations in the application and those persisting in the reply to submissions and in the response to my queries.
• [68] The way the applicant pursued this application, including the continual reliance on non-existent or irrelevant case law and legislative provisions, and incorrect or unsubstantiated claims about the submitted evidence, has impeded the determination of this application. It has certainly required more time for me to investigate the application and it undoubtedly increased the costs for the body corporate to respond to the application.
• [69] I am satisfied the application is misconceived and without substance. Moreover, I consider the scale of the deficiencies in the submitted material amounts to an abuse of process. The body corporate has been put to considerable expense in responding to this application. The resources of this office have also been wasted. I am satisfied an award of costs is warranted.

• [70] It is unfortunate if the applicant purchased Lot 1424 without knowledge of a problem with the air conditioner drainage pipe in their lot. It is unfortunate that they have experienced damage to the lot as a result. However, that does not mean the body corporate is responsible for the cause or the consequences of the problem.
• [71] The premise of this application is misconceived. It is clear the pipe in question is not on common property and is not itself common property. It is part of the lot that the applicant is inherently responsible for. The applicant has not identified a genuine legal basis for the body corporate to become be responsible for the pipe or the consequences of the blocked or damaged pipe. Given that, it is not necessary to consider the need for repairs to Lot 1424 or the applicant's expenditure to date. Those matters are the responsibility of the applicant.
• [72] I will dismiss the application. Moreover, I consider it is appropriate to dismiss it as misconceived and without substance. And, given the nature of the material submitted by the applicant, I consider an award of $2,000 in costs against the applicant is warranted.

[2] Sections 227, 228, 276 and schedule 5 of the Act

[10] It appears the leak referred to in that submission relates to a bathroom.

[11] I am unable to identify any such allegation in the body corporate's submission.

[12] I am unable to identify any such assertion in the body corporate's submission.

[13] I am unable to identify any such allegation in the body corporate's submission.

[14] Sections 48C and 49C(4) of the Land Title Act 1994

[15] Registrar of Titles Directions for the Preparation of Plans, Department of Natural Resources, Mines & Energy, 1998-2018, paragraphs 9.6.3 and 4

[16] Section 20 of the Act

[17] See the definition of utility infrastructure in schedule 6 of the Act.

[18] See the definition of utility service in schedule 6 of the Act.

[21] Section 201 of the Accommodation Module

[22] Section 201(5) of the Accommodation Module

[23] Section 170 of the Accommodation Module

[24] Section 170(2)(a) and (b) of the Accommodation Module

[25] Section 170(3) of the Accommodation Module

[26] See for example, Suginoko Place [2021] QBCCMCmr 110, para 8.

[27] The applicant said a report dated 13 February 2025 was attached to the response to my queries, but I can identify no such report in the large volume of material provided.

[28] Despite my explicit request for a copy of the correspondence by which the body corporate was first notified of the leak, and despite the applicant claiming to have provided an email dated 24 February by which that occurred, no such email was included in the lengthy communications provided.

[29] Noting section 170(5) of the Accommodation Module and section 281 of the Act

[32] Sections 270(3) and (4) of the Act

[33] For example, the applicant variously referred to the contents of an All Trades Contracting Services QLD report dated 13 February, an invoice or quote LDQ-1449 from Leak Detection QLD in April, and a Draincare quote DC-5671 in May, but did not provide those documents on request.

[34] Elanora Place [2009] QBCCMCmr 260

[36] The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidelines for Responsible Use by Non-Lawyers, https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/\_\_data/assets/pdf\_file/0012/798375/Artificial-Intelligence\_Guidelines-for-Non-Lawyers.pdf

[37] Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij [2025] QSC 217 is a recent example of 'hallucinated' case law.

[38] Murray on behalf of the Wamba Wemba Native Title Claim Group v State of Victoria [2025] FCA 731

[39] Murray on behalf of the Wamba Wemba Native Title Claim Group v State of Victoria [2025] FCA 731, at 14

[40] LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia [2025] QCAT 96 at 26, see also Chief Executive, Department of Justice v Wise and Wise Real Estate Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QCAT 222 at 56