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

BY-LAWS - whether the respondent is parking vehicles and boats in breach of the by-laws.

Act, ss 59, 182A, 183AA, 184

1. Within 6 months of this order, the respondent Nenad Mijuksovic must, with regard to the red boat currently on Lot 8428, either remove the boat entirely from the lot, or house the boat within a garage or carport on Lot 8428, or screen the boat so it is not visible from common property.
2. The application is otherwise dismissed.

[1] This application is about the parking of boats and vehicles at the scheme.

[2] The body corporate says its by-laws (By-law 5.2 and 5.3) prohibit the parking of vehicles or boats on any lot, unless housed in a garage, carport or screened from view, or on common property. It says Lot 8428 has repeatedly breached the by-laws. It cites evidence of alleged non-compliance since mid-2024. The applicant says it wants an order that the occupiers of Lot 8428 comply with the by-laws and remove all non-compliant boats and vehicles from common property and from the lot unless they are housed or screened.

[3] South East Village Ridges community titles scheme 46052 (SEVR) is a 232-lot scheme at Peregian Springs. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plans 264894, 264895, 264899, 264900, 264901, 264911 and 264912. SEVR is in a layered arrangement, with the principal body corporate (PBC) being Ridges Peregian Springs community titles scheme 39713.

An order that occupiers (including Lot 8428) cannot park boats, cars or other vehicles on the Common Property, or on the Lot; instead that cars, boats and other vehicles need to be parked behind the fence or in the garage as per By-Laws 5.2 Parking on Common Property and 5.3 Parking on Lot (refer to attachment 6. Orders Sought).

[5] 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]

[6] The body corporate originally applied for conciliation in September 2025.[3] However, the conciliator ended the conciliation on the basis that the respondent did not make a reasonable attempt to participate.

[7] This application was lodged on 12 November 2025, pursuant to a resolution on 25 August.

[8] The Commissioner invited submissions from the respondent and all owners.[4] No submissions were received. The respondent did not acknowledge receipt of the notice of the application, which was emailed to the email address provided by the body corporate, despite follow up requests. Notice of the application was then posted to the street address of the lot and an interstate address provided by the applicant. No response was received.

[9] The application was referred to department adjudication.[5]

[10] I have now investigated the dispute, including seeking for information from the parties.[6]

[11] After reviewing the application, I wrote to the body corporate seeking further information.

[12] I sought clarification of whether the body corporate asserted the respondent was an occupier of Lot 8428, given it supplied an interstate address for them. The body corporate said it was informed by neighbours in June 2025 that the lot owner had moved back into the lot, and it believed the owner resided in the lot. It said the respondent had not advised they were not the occupier, or provided tenant details if they were not the owner, and had not responded to a request for an updated postal address.

[13] While the application alleged contraventions of By-laws 5.2 and 5.3, I noted the by-law contravention notices in the application only referred to By-law 5.3. I asked if a contravention notice had been issued regarding By-law 5.2. The body corporate confirmed it had not.

[14] While the body corporate appeared to seek outcomes against all owners and occupiers of Lot 8428, only the owner was named as respondent and no evidence was provided of any attempts to resolve the dispute with, or give a by-law contravention notice to, anyone else. So, I queried the basis for any orders to be made against anyone other than the respondent. The body corporate maintained that it sought an outcome that the respondent and any other occupiers comply with the by-laws.

[15] Next, I sought clarification of the common property on which the alleged conduct was occurring. I noted Lot 8428 is on survey plan 264900. Survey plan 264900 shows the common property adjacent to Lot 8428 (indicated on the plan as 'Kamala Close') is common property for CTS 39713 (the principal scheme) rather than for CTS 46052 (SEVR). Pursuant to By-law 1.2 of schedule C of the current SEVR CMS[7], the term 'common property' in the by-laws is defined to mean the common property of the 'scheme'. The 'scheme' is then defined in By-law 1.2 as meaning 'South East Village Ridges Community Titles Scheme 46052'. Accordingly, if the disputed conduct was occurring on the common property for CTS 39713, I sought clarification of the basis on which the body corporate asserted it would contravene By-law 5.2. The body corporate did not deny the alleged conduct was on principal scheme common property. It asserted the conduct amounted to a breach of By-law 5.2 because the PBC had the same parking by-laws.

[16] I then sought clarification of matters about the alleged parking of boats and vehicles and how it was said to be contravening the by-laws. I also sought evidence of any continuing conduct alleged to contravene the by-laws The body corporate provided some further information, which I will note below where relevant. It said there were currently no vehicles parked on common property but there was a history back to June 2025 of up to 3 cars or vehicles parked in breach of By-law 5.2 and it was concerned of a recurrence at any time. Notwithstanding that, body corporate also asserted the offending conduct was continuing and provided photographs.

[17] On review of that information, I wrote to the respondent providing them with a further opportunity to address the application and to comment on the body corporate's additional information. The respondent advised they had spoken with the body corporate. They confirmed they had moved from interstate a year ago and had noticed other vehicles in the area parked in that manner, so assumed it was acceptable. However, they advised they had since removed the boat and no longer park on the nature strip in front of their property.

[18] I provided this response to the body corporate. It advised that the boat parked on common property had been moved but a red boat parked on the lot remained. It said they had advised the respondent verbally and in writing that the boat on the lot must be removed or screened but had not received a response.

[19] The question raised by this application is whether the respondent is acting in a manner that contravenes the by-laws.

[20] The body corporate seeks orders against all occupiers of Lot 8428. However, no one other than the respondent was identified or named as a party to this application.

[21] It is not disputed that the respondent occupies Lot 8428. Others may also live in the lot, but no information about any other occupiers has been provided. And the body corporate has not evidenced any attempts to resolve the dispute with, or give a by-law contravention notice to, anyone other than the respondent. The application does not allege the respondent failed to meet any obligations regarding the conduct of any other occupiers or invitees. Having regard to the principles of natural justice, I do not consider I can made orders to bind unidentified persons who are not parties to this dispute or properly on notice of it.

[22] All owners and occupiers must comply with the CMS, including the by-laws.[8]

[23] The Act imposes an obligation on the body corporate to enforce the by-laws recorded in its CMS.[9] As with all its functions, the body corporate must act reasonably in enforcing the by-laws.[10] The Act sets out the process for a body corporate to enforce by-laws.[11]

[24] The current CMS for SEVR, includes the following By-law 5.2:

The Owner or Occupier of a Lot must not, without prior approval of the Committee:

(a) park a vehicle, allow a vehicle to stand, on the Common Property unless such Common Property is marked and/or signed as available for parking; or

(b) permit a visitor to park a vehicle, or allow a vehicle to stand on the Common Property unless such Common Property is marked and/or signed as available for parking.

An approval under this By-law must state the period for which it is given. The Committee may in its absolute discretion cancel any approval immediately upon Notice to the Occupier.

[25] By-law 1.2 defines 'vehicles' as 'includes motor bikes, but does not include motor vehicles in excess of three (3) tonnes weigh loaded, caravans, campervans or mobile homes'.

[26] Also, as noted above, under the definitions in By-law 1.2, the common property to which By-law 5.2 applies is only the common property for SEVR and not the common property of the principal scheme or any other scheme in the development. The principal scheme by-laws also prohibit parking on principal scheme common property.[12] Accordingly, parking on principal scheme common property may contravene a principal scheme CMS by-law, but not By-law 5.2 in the SEVR CMS.

[27] By-law 2.1 provides that each owner is bound by the terms of the principal scheme CMS. But the SEVR CMS (and the Act) does not impose a positive obligation on the SEVR body corporate to enforce the principal scheme by-laws. The principal scheme CMS by-laws (at 2.1) only says that a subsidiary body corporate (such as SEVR) must "not suffer, permit or allow any Owner or Occupier of a Lot included in the Subsidiary Scheme or invitee of such Owner of Occupier to do any thing which (if done by an Owner or Occupier of a Lot included in this Scheme, would constitute a breach of these By-laws) (sic)".

[28] There is a question as to the capacity of the SEVR body corporate to pursue a dispute against an owner or occupier within SEVR for a breach of the principal scheme by-laws.[13] It would at least need to be 'directly and materially affected' by the alleged contravention that is the subject of the dispute.[14] But if the SEVR body corporate can bring an application to enforce the by-law, it must first give the person a by-law contravention notice.[15]

[29] And arguably the requirement for the by-law contravention notice to identify the by-law alleged to have been contravened, would in a layered scheme require specification of the CMS referred to. As such, here the notice should specify whether it was a contravention of By-law 5.2 in the SEVR CMS or By-law 5.2 in the principal scheme CMS being alleged.

[30] The body corporate has not established that any conduct by any occupier of Lot 8428 involving parking on the common property outside the lot could constitute a breach a breach of By-law 5.2 in the SEVR CMS.

[31] Where the body corporate did not issue a by-law contravention notice citing By-law 5.2 in the principal scheme CMS (or at all), the application regarding that conduct was not properly made. Although the body corporate sent letters to the respondent citing By-law 5.2 (but not indicating if it was referring to the by-law in the SEVR CMS or the principal scheme CMS), those letters did not include all the elements required for a valid contravention notice.[16]

[32] Parking cars on the principal scheme common property could contravene a principal scheme by-law. However, the body corporate also provided no evidence that the cars evident in the photographs it supplied were owned by the respondent, parked on the common property by the respondent, or parked on common property with the permission of the respondent. And I note the body corporate includes evidence of alleged breaches from well before the parties indicate that respondent was an occupier of the lot. So, the application did not substantiate the basis for an order against the respondent even if it were properly made. It any event, at this time it appears the disputed conduct has ceased.

[33] In regard to the boat previously parked on common property, there is a question of whether it constitutes a vehicle regulated by the by-law. The body corporate asserts that a boat is a vehicle and is not excluded in the definition of a vehicle. There is no definition of a vehicle in the Act. Queensland's Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 defines a 'vehicle' as 'includes any type of transport that moves on wheels and a hovercraft but does not include a train or tram.'[17] Adjudicators have found a vehicle for the purpose of that definition would not include a boat but would include the trailer that a boat is on.[18] The boat on common property in the photographs is on a trailer.

[34] However, the body corporate provided no evidence the boat and trailer in the photographs were owned by the respondent, or parked on the common property by the respondent or with the respondent's permission. It any event, it appears the boat and trailer has been moved.

In order to maintain an attractive overall streetscape the Owner or Occupier of a Lot must not park or permit to be parked, trucks and commercial vehicles, caravans, boats, trailers or recreational vehicles on a Lot unless they are completely housed within a garage or carport or otherwise satisfactorily screened from view from public areas.

[36] The application includes photographs of a red inflatable type boat on a trailer apparently on Lot 8428. The body corporate says the boat remains (and provides a photograph of it dated 31 March 2026) such that the breach of By-law 5.3 remains.

[37] The body corporate issued by-law contravention notices referencing By-law 5.3 on 19 June 2026. But the notices did not identify which boat was being referred to and at the time there was both a red boat on the lot and a larger cream boat on the common property. The notices also said the by-law was being breached by a boat being parked on the road. That indicates the concern was with the larger cream boat on common property rather than the red boat on the lot, despite By-law 5.3 not relating to common property. That is confusing.

[38] However, if the respondent was not aware from the contravention notices that the body corporate was concerned with the red boat as well as the larger cream boat, that should have been aware from the application and the body corporate's responses to my queries.

[39] The respondent did not comment on the red boat or their by-law obligations regarding the red boat in their limited response.

[40] I am satisfied that under By-law 5.3 the respondent must not park or permit a boat to be parked on their lot unless it is within a garage or carport or screened from view. I am satisfied from the submitted photographs that the red boat is on the lot. It is on one side of the residence and is not in a garage or carport. It is not screened from view. It is clearly visible from the street.

[41] The body corporate has not evidenced who owns the red boat or who parked or stored it on the lot. But where the respondent owns the lot and acknowledges that they occupy the lot, I consider the respondent must have permitted the boat to be on the lot even if they did not do so personally.

[42] I have concerns about the body corporate's understanding of the obligations imposed by the cited by-laws and its responsibilities in enforcing and evidencing alleged contraventions.

[43] This application was not properly made in respect of the alleged contravention of By-law 5.2. Moreover, I am not satisfied on the submitted evidence there is an ongoing dispute about that matter. I will dismiss the application in that respect.

[44] The by-law contravention notices issued regard By-law 5.3 did not appropriately identify the alleged contravention. However, on balance I am satisfied the respondent has parked a boat on their lot, or permitted that to occur, in breach of By-law 5.3. I will make an order requiring that to be rectified.

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

[3] Conciliation application reference 0850-2025

[7] Titles dealing number 718042114, recorded 22 August 2018

[10] Noting section 94(2) and 100(5) of the Act

[11] Division 4 of part 5, chapter 3 of the Act

[12] By-law 5.2 in the principal scheme CMS (Titles dealing number 724497028, recorded 18 November 2025) is expressed in the same terms as By-law 5.2 in the SEVR CMS.

[13] Noting sections 184 and 227(3) of the Act

[14] As per section 227(3) but also section 238 of the Act

[16] Pursuant to sections 182A and 183AA of the Act

[18] For example, Ryan Court [2023] QBCCMCmr 459 and Freedom Terraces [2013] QBCCMCmr 423