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

DISMISSAL - STAY OF DETERMINATION - EXISTENCE OF A DISPUTE - Following the submissions process and after the application was referred by the Commissioner for adjudication, the applicant informed the Commissioner that its nominated representative in the application was unwell and unable to deal with the proceedings, and sought an indefinite stay of the application's determination. The applicant's representative was otherwise unresponsive to the Commissioner's and adjudicator's requests for information and submissions in relation to other applications. The applicant was requested to inform the adjudicator whether the applicant wished to proceed with this application and nominate a new representative. The applicant was put on notice that, in the absence of a response, the application would be dismissed. The applicant did not respond. The question is whether the determination should be stayed and otherwise whether the application should be dismissed without substantive consideration.

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), s 270

• [1] This is a decision on one of a number of applications made in quick succession by Pango Holdings Pty Ltd, the caretaking service contractor at Somerset Gardens CTS 25221, and otherwise by Violet Blackstock, who is that company's director and also the owner of lot 1 at the scheme.
• [2] In this application, Pango Holdings Pty Ltd applies for orders against the committee for the body corporate. I note that in my decision on application 1027-2024, I expressed doubts that I could make orders on the committee as respondent.[1] The applicant has not sought to address that concern in regard to this application.
• [3] I will not set out the substance of those requested orders. It suffices to say the substantive allegations are denied and the application is resisted by the respondent.
• [4] The applicant nominated Les Blackstock, also known as Laszlo Koszo, as their representative in this application. On 8 August 2025, in response to requests by this office for further information and submissions in relation to other applications by these applicants, Mr Blackstock / Koszo wrote to this office in the following terms:

As you are aware I have not responded to previous emails, from yourself or adjudicators in matters 1027-2024, 1162-2024, 1202-2024, 0034-2025 and 0107-2025.

This action, is not because of a lack of desire, but being unable due to my psychological distress.

That has been caused, in part, by the actions of the committee at Somerset Gardens and the response of staff at the BCCM Commissioner's office. The action of staff that I speak of are:

• - forcing me to address "urgency" that was latter not an issue in front of adjudicators,
• - be make the adjustments to my applications and been respond in previous applications.
• - the way that the staff at the commissioner's office failed to reaonsobale address my handle complaint made to the department of justice,
• - and what appears to be a bias against applicants who stand up against bullies misusing their powers on the body corporate Act. To me section 276(1) to allows adjudicators to deal with "anticipated" contraventions of the Act, however the adjudicators
  • would not stop stopping committee members acting to cause nuisance and harm on body corporate land that led to a deterioration in my wife's well being, that I had to deal with and then led to my own deterioration
  • would not stop those committee members overspending (that end of year Financial reports are attached, read page 3). How can it be a just and equitable decision to allow administrative budget to be over spend by $150,000 and using the sinking fund to pay for additional expenditure.

I attach a medical certificate (and my change of name certificate) that explains my present situation being unable to respond.

I am working on be being able to recover and have left the county, on my treating doctor's advice with my wife to try to help our recovery.

I ask that all matters be placed "on hold" till my recovery allows me to be able to fairly respond to requests and submissions and make adjustments to the application that the adjudicator suggested.

• [5] At that time, I was in the process of deciding application 1027-2024, lodged by Pango Holdings Pty Ltd, in which Mr Blackstock / Koszo was also the representative. I declined to grant a stay and proceeded to determine that application, on 29 August 2025. In so doing, I considered the authorities and principles relevant to granting a stay and commented:[2]

[A]n indefinite stay of an application, at an applicant's request, and especially when it seeks to invalidate a number of body corporate decisions which the body corporate is both entitled and required to act upon, would unfairly leave a metaphorical sword hanging above the committee members' and owners' heads. In my view, the respondent and affected owners would be justified in feeling less confident in the capacity of the Commissioner's dispute resolution service to serve its purpose, were an indefinite stay granted at this stage.

• [6] I hold that view also in relation to this application and decline to stay its determination.
• [7] In my reasons for application 1027-2024, I also expressed the following view about the information and evidence provided in support of the claim that Mr Blackstock / Koszo was incapacitated:[3]

The medical certificate referred to is issued by a general practitioner who reports that Mr Koszo has been a patient in his care 'for the last 5 years' and 'is currently suffering from a relapse of his fragile mental conditions' and that 'he has just been assessed by his Psychiatrist.' There is no other information provided about the nature or severity of the condition, nor is a report from the treating psychiatrist provided. The certificate goes on to state that Mr Koszo 'is medically unfit and unable to complete and present a submission to the Commission on the due date on 04/08/2025' but there is no opinion given as to his fitness after that date, nor a general prognosis.

• [8] In the circumstances, I considered it necessary to ascertain the applicants' intentions as to their further participation in the adjudication proceedings. On 23 September 2025, I wrote to the applicants through Mr Blackstock / Koszo with specific reference to applications 1162-2024, 1202-2024, 0034-2025, and 0107-2025. I said:

I refer to the above applications lodged by Pango Holdings Pty Ltd and Violet Blackstock.

I note that in application ref no. 0562-2025, by email on 8 August 2025, the applicants' nominated representative Laszlo Koszo informed this Office that he was unwell and that the applicants wished the various applications to be placed "on hold" until Mr Koszo was well enough to respond to various matters.

On 8 August 2025, I wrote to the applicant care of Mr Koszo requesting to be informed by 18 August 2025 whether the applicants proposed to nominate a representative in these applications other than Mr Koszo, or otherwise withdraw the applications. I did not receive a response.

I note also that, on 11 September 2025, the Commissioner rejected application ref. no. 0562-2025 by Pango Holdings Pty Ltd because it did not respond to requests for information in relation to that application.

In the circumstances, I am concerned that the applicants no longer wish to proceed with the remaining undecided applications, for want of disputes to be resolved.

If the applicants wish to continue with the applications, I require them to nominate a representative with whom I may correspond in relation to further investigation of these applications.

If I do not receive a response from the applicants by close of business, 3 October 2025, indicating that they wish to proceed with the applications and nominating a representative for the applicants, I will proceed to dismiss the applications without further notice.

• [9] I did not receive a response.
• [10] In light of the matters set out above, I am not satisfied the applicant still desires to have the alleged dispute resolved.
• [11] I note that section 238(1) of the Act provides that an adjudication application may only be made, and jurisdiction thereby enlivened, if the applicant is a party to and directly concerned with a dispute. In my view, the requirement for there to be a dispute applies at all times until an application is disposed of by an order being made. I note also that an adjudicator's power to make an order, under section 276(1) of the Act, arises only if the order would resolve a dispute.
• [12] That leads me to the question of whether I should dismiss the application without considering the substance of it, even though there may be sufficient materials before me to determine it. That is a particularly relevant concern given the 103 requested orders and the 1,200 pages of application materials. In that regard, I note that section 270(2) of the Act permits me to dismiss an application without investigating the detail of the application or before an investigation has ended, that is, without considering the substance of the application.
• [13] As to the bases upon which an adjudicator may dismiss an application, section 270(1) of the Act relevantly provides:

(1) The adjudicator may make an order dismissing the application if -

(a) it appears to the adjudicator that the adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to deal with the application; or

(c) it appears to the adjudicator that the application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance; or

• [14] In my view, for section 270(1)(a) purposes, in light of section 238(1) discussed above, an adjudicator may decide that they do not have jurisdiction to deal with an application if it appears there is no dispute sought to be resolved by the applicant.
• [15] Further, for section 270(1)(c) purposes, I consider it frivolous and/or vexatious for an applicant to continue with an application where dispute resolution is no longer desired.
• [16] In circumstances where the applicant did not respond to my 23 September 2025 request while on notice of the consequences of failing to respond, I will dismiss this application pursuant to section 270(1)(a), and further or alternatively pursuant to subsection 270(1)(c).
• [17] Costs can be ordered against an applicant if an application is dismissed pursuant to subsection 270(1)(c). However, given I have doubts that the applicants are truly the driving forces behind these applications, and I cannot make such an order directly against the person whom I suspect to be the controlling mind, I have decided not to make such an order.
• [18] Finally, I note I have given reasons for decisions expressed in these terms on three other applications referred to above. For the avoidance of doubt, these are my considered reasons in relation to this application.

[1] Somerset Gardens [2025] QBCCMCmr 297 at [47] and following

[2] Somerset Gardens [2025] QBCCMCmr 297 at [28]