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

1. That Jade Begbie, the owner of Lot 47 at Spectrum CTS 9749 ('scheme') must immediately cease and cause his agents, employees, contractors and associates to cease any demolition or renovation works to the said Lot 47, until such time as the Body Corporate for Spectrum ('body corporate') approves the said works in writing, or until further or final order.
2. That Jade Begbie must immediately cease and cause his agents, employees, contractors and associates to cease plugging either directly or indirectly any electrical equipment, machinery, tools and extension cords into common property power points, or otherwise using the common electrical power supply (not metered to Lot 47) without the written approval of the body corporate or until further or final order.

1. That Order 1 above, pertains only to works which ordinarily require body corporate approval under the scheme's by-laws or applicable law .

1. The body corporate to respond promptly to any correspondence by Jade Begbie and/or his agents with respect to obtaining body corporate approval for the demolition and renovation works to Lot 47.

• [01] This dispute is (as complained) about a lot owner carrying out demolition and renovation works to his lot soon after its purchase, without body corporate approval. In doing so, the lot owner's contractors are using the common property electrical power supply. More importantly, the body corporate fears the lot owner is, in the process of the works, making changes to common property utility infrastructure, and structural or load bearing components within the lot, without its approval. Accordingly, the body corporate is seeking interim relief to halt the works until the dispute is finally determined at adjudication, or until it receives sufficient information from the lot owner allowing it to approve the works.

• [02] The scheme, Spectrum CTS 9749, comprises 56 lots and common property, and is regulated under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 ('Act') and the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020 ('Standard Module').
• [03] The scheme building consists of multiple levels labelled alphabetically from A to X. Lot 47 is located on Level R.
• [04] The applicant is the Body Corporate for Spectrum; and the respondent, Jade Begbie, is the owner of Lot 47.

• [05] The scheme's by-laws require a lot owner who seeks to make certain alterations to the lot to obtain body corporate approval prior to carrying out the works. This includes structural alterations to the lot;[1] any laying or relaying of flooring;[2] any work to the interior of the lot which may result in noise that can be heard by other occupiers[3] etc.
• [06] Further, the by-laws require lot owners making such alterations to provide the committee with details of the proposed work which may include:
• [07] Plans of the proposed alterations to the lot including changes to plumbing, cables, wiring, flooring and engineering plans;[4]
• [08] If the proposed work includes alterations to the original layout of the lot, or structural alterations of any kind, a certificate from a registered structural engineer certifying that the works will not affect the structural integrity of the building;[5] and
• [09] If the proposed work includes the installation of flooring, a report prepared by an acoustic engineer which confirms that appropriate sound-proofing measures have been taken.[6]
• [10] On 29 September 2025, the former owner of Lot 47 entered into a contract with the respondent for the sale of the said lot, with settlement scheduled to occur on 24 October 2025. On 3 October 2025, the former lot owner made an application for the applicant body corporate to approve demolition and renovation works proposed by the respondent to Lot 47.
• [11] The former lot owner noted that these works would include:

a) Demolition of selected non-structural walls to reconfigure the internal layout; > > b) Installation of new non-structural walls; > > c) The creation of a new room; > > d) Reflooring with either tiles or engineered timber; > > e) Replacement of existing window furnishings; > > f) Replacement or adding air conditioning units; etc.

• [12] On 9 October 2025, the applicant body corporate advised the former lot owner that the application was made on an incorrect form, and sought revision. On 16 October 2025, the respondent resubmitted the application in the correct form.
• [13] Subsequently, between 24 October 2025 and 31 October 2025, the respondent commenced the works, in the absence of body corporate approval.
• [14] On 31 October 2025, the applicant body corporate required the immediate cessation of works, and required the respondent to provide further information in support of the application.
• [15] On multiple occasions, the applicant body corporate wrote to the respondent indicating that the further information sought (namely a detailed scope of works and certification from an engineer that the works will not impact the structural integrity of the building) remains outstanding and reiterated its demand for the works to cease. It further demanded that his contractors refrain from using the common property electrical power supply. The applicant body corporate then issued by-law contravention notices in this regard.
• [16] On 2 November 2025, the respondent's associate wrote to the applicant body corporate indicating that they 'decided not to change the layout so there won't be any structural changes and therefore no engineering information required' (See By-law 28.2(e)). She also added that they 'don't have individual quotes for work' and 'simply pay on completion'.
• [17] On 3 November 2025, the respondent's associate once again wrote to the applicant body corporate indicating that they have not decided whether to go with tiles or hybrid flooring and so are unable to provide information regarding soundproofing. She however states that she can confirm regardless that soundproofing will be used.
• [18] On 5 November 2025, the applicant body corporate wrote to the respondent outlining the further information pending, and requesting the same once again.
• [19] On 19 November 2025, the applicant body corporate commissioned a consultant ('Olive Tree') to provide a building condition report in relation to the works being carried out in Lot 47.
• [20] The respondent evidently furnished Olive Tree with:

a) A copy of drawings ('Floor Layout Plan') setting out the reconfiguration of the lot as prepared by an engineering company; and > > b) An invoice in relation to works proposed to modify the fire sprinkler infrastructure ('Fire Sprinkler Works') within the lot.

• [21] Subsequently, Olive Tree noted in its report that the Floor Layout Plan does not appear to be final certified plans, and that the engineering certification sought by the applicant body corporate has still not been provided. Further, in relation to the Fire Sprinkler Works, Olive Tree recommended requiring further evidence of licensed and qualified certification.
• [22] Importantly, Olive Tree noted that certain walls were being removed, with others being replaced - i.e., contrary to the assertion by the respondent's associate that the layout of the lot would remain unchanged.
• [23] Accordingly, the respondent continues to carry out the works to his lot without requisite body corporate approval, using electrical power that is charged to the applicant body corporate. More importantly, the respondent has failed to provide an engineer's certification that the works shall not compromise the structural integrity of the building and formal evidence that the Fire Sprinkler Works will not interfere with the fire safety system for the scheme building.
• [24] The applicant body corporate has provided photographs of the ongoing works which it states evince substantial damage to internal walls and utility services for the scheme. It adds that for works of such significant structural nature, including the replacement of flooring throughout the entire lot, and the modification of utility infrastructure (including utility infrastructure which is common property), the information provided by the respondent is entirely deficient and inadequate for the applicant body corporate to consider for approval.

• [25] In these circumstances, the applicant body corporate seeks the following final orders (to be determined at a later stage):

a) That unless the respondent has body corporate approval or the authority of an adjudicator's order, the respondent must, within six months of the date of the order, reinstate Lot 47 to its condition prior to the unauthorised demolition and renovation works to the same; > > b) Such other or alternate orders as the adjudicator reasonably considers necessary or appropriate in the circumstances.

• [26] Further, the applicant body corporate seeks the following interim orders (the subject of this decision):

a) That the respondent immediately cease any further demolition or renovation works to Lot 47 until such time as he has body corporate approval or the authority of an order of an adjudicator; or in the alternative > > b) That the respondent immediately cease any further demolition or renovation works to Lot 47 until such time as he has provided the applicant body corporate with the following: > > (i) A report from a licensed structural engineer which confirms that the works have not and, following completion, will not, adversely affect the structural integrity or soundness of the foundation structures and essential supporting framework, including any load-bearing walls, in Lot 47; and > > (ii) A report from a licensed fire safety inspector which confirms that the works have not and, following completion, will not, adversely affect any fire safety utility infrastructure (including sprinkler systems) within Lot 47; and

1. That the respondent cease and cause his contractors to cease, plugging electrical equipment, machinery and/or tools into common property power points, or otherwise using the common property electrical power supply (not metered to Lot 47) to operate equipment, machinery and/or tools; and/or

d) Such other or alternate order as the adjudicator reasonably considers necessary or appropriate in the circumstances.

• [27] 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 Community Management Statement ('CMS')[7] or about the exercise of rights or powers, or performance of duties under the Act or CMS.[8] Further, an order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting in a manner stated.[9] An order may also contain ancillary and consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate. [10]
• [28] I am satisfied that I have jurisdiction to determine the dispute in question by virtue of sections 276(1)(a) and (b) of the Act (read together with section 227(1)(b) of the Act).

• [29] This application for interim orders was lodged on 4 December 2025.
• [30] On 5 December 2025, the Commissioner's delegate requested further information from the applicant body corporate, under section 240 of the Act.
• [31] Later the same day, the applicant body corporate provided the information so sought.
• [32] On 8 December 2025, the Commissioner referred the application to department adjudication in terms of section 247 of the Act.
• [33] The Commissioner may refer a matter for department adjudication of an interim order application without the respondent and any affected persons having an opportunity to make submissions on it. Furthermore, there is no statutory requirement for the department adjudicator to obtain comment from the respondent and any affected person before such an application is determined.
• [34] On 8 December 2025, I through my delegate attempted to provide the respondent with an opportunity (with a rather generous timeframe) to make a submission provided he was willing to furnish a written undertaking to cease the works until I decided the application for interim orders. The respondent declined, indicating that he was unable and unwilling to cease the works.
• [35] I nevertheless provided the respondent with an opportunity to make a submission. He did so on 9 and 11 December 2025.
• [36] Subsequently, upon my invitation, on 16 December 2025 the applicant body corporate replied to the submission so made.

a) His contract to purchase Lot 47 was expressly subject to the former owner lodging a renovation application with the applicant body corporate noting that the works will commence upon settlement; > > b) Accordingly, the former owner lodged the application with the applicant body corporate, with the same being resubmitted in the correct form by the respondent; > > c) The applicant body corporate indicated that it would respond within four weeks but did not do so; > > d) The respondent waited four weeks for a response from the applicant body corporate, and upon a lack of objection or request for further information, he commenced the works. 'The Body Corporate's administrative delay cannot retrospectively invalidate our lawful position'; > > e) The respondent complied with subsequent requests for information promptly, including requests regarding soundproofing; > > f) The solicitor for the applicant body corporate confirmed verbally that the respondent has provided all information required for the committee to make a decision. Accordingly, the delay in making a decision is not attributable to a deficiency on the part of the respondent but of the committee's internal issues; > > g) The Olive Tree report confirms that there has been no structural impact from the works, or any cracking, movement or any adverse impacts, or any damage to common property. This report makes clear that the applicant body corporate's allegation of structural alterations has no factual basis; > > h) Under the legislation, the applicant body corporate must not unreasonably withhold approval;

1. There is no compelling basis for interim orders given there is no real risk of serious of irreparable harm.

• [38] The applicant body corporate notes that the respondent has failed to establish that the committee acted unreasonably.
• [39] Further, it adds that even if the respondent's application via the former lot owner on 3 October 2025 had included all of the information reasonably necessary and required by the by-laws, in order for the committee to make a decision on the application, the statutory timeframe for it to consider the application under section 58 of the Standard Module would not have expired until 14 November 2025, i.e., a period of six weeks. Further, it states that the extended period for the committee to make a decision in this regard would not expire until 26 December 2025.
• [40] It states that even if the respondent's allegation of inordinate delay on the part of the applicant body corporate in considering his application is established, the proper exercise of the respondent's rights would be to treat the situation as a failure to approve the works, and to then commence steps to challenge the deemed refusal through appropriate legal avenues.
• [41] The applicant body corporate states that the respondent does not deny that he has failed to provide all of the required information under the by-laws, including:

a) Plans of the proposed changes; > > b) Local council approvals; > > c) A certificate from a registered structural engineer, certifying that the works will not affect the structural integrity of the building; > > d) A deed of indemnity in respect of any costs incurred by the applicant body corporate as a result of and incidental to the request for approval, the carrying out of the works and installation; and > > e) A report prepared by an acoustic engineer which confirms that appropriate sound-proofing measures have been taken and the product is fit for purpose and meets the required level of floor impact isolation of LnTw 60 or less.

• [42] Furthermore, the solicitor for the applicant body corporate confirms that he made no statement to the effect that the respondent had provided the requisite information to the committee.

• [43] An adjudicator may make an interim order only if satisfied it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[11] Accordingly, an applicant must satisfy the adjudicator that serious or irreparable damage would be caused without the interim order.
• [44] An interim order has effect for a period stated in the order, not to be longer than one year, and may be extended, varied, renewed or cancelled by the adjudicator until a final order is made, and otherwise lapses when an application is finally determined or withdrawn.[12]
• [45] An interim order is usually made in the form of a temporary injunction - an order not to do something, pending a final determination of an application.
• [46] In deciding whether an interim order is warranted, adjudicators often adopt the approach taken by courts to considering interlocutory injunction applications.[13] The first issue is whether the applicant has made out a 'prima facie case' or raised a 'serious legal question', in the sense that if the evidence remains as it is there is some probability that the applicant will succeed at the final determination stage. The second issue is whether any inconvenience or injury which the applicant would be likely to suffer if an interim order were refused outweighs or is outweighed by any inconvenience or injury which the respondent would suffer if an interim order were granted. Those two issues of serious legal question and balance of convenience are parts of one ultimate question - whether an interim order is warranted - and therefore should not be addressed mechanically or in isolation from one another.
• [47] The questions of law and fact raised by the application do not need to be finally decided at the interim order determination stage, and doing so is not appropriate where the evidence is potentially incomplete, or questions of law require opposing arguments and unhurried consideration. That said, if the answer to a question of fact or law is clear on the evidence and issues as presented in the interim application, it may be appropriate and beneficial to decide such questions at the interlocutory stage.[14]
• [48] Even if the considerations of urgency or balance of convenience favour the applicant, it is not inappropriate for an interim order application to be dismissed if there is little or no prospect of success on the legal arguments and the uncontroversial facts, at the final determination stage.
• [49] Ordinarily, an interim injunction should do no more than maintain the status quo for a limited time or until the determination of the main application, usually in the form of a restraining injunction. An interim order in the form of a mandatory injunction, i.e., an order requiring a respondent to do something (as opposed to a restraint) which is not needed to preserve an existing interest of the applicant and which imposes a non-compensable burden or loss on the respondent is a special case. It is rarely made by courts and calls for particularly careful consideration, with the effect that the balance of convenience is shifted in the respondent's favour (all other things being equal).[15]

• [50] Accordingly, the only issue for determination at present is whether the interim relief as sought is warranted in the circumstances.
• [51] Whilst I have not detailed every element of the application, submission and reply, in this decision, all such material have been duly considered.

• [52] The applicant body corporate states that the extent of the damage to the lot is evident from the photographs provided.
• [53] The most relevant factor as far as the applicant body corporate is concerned, is not to do with any damage to the lot per se, but that to (and the impact to) the common property including any utility infrastructure, and any damage and impact to other lots.
• [54] In this regard, the applicant body corporate reiterates its concerns regarding the lack of engineering certification that the works will not compromise the structural integrity of the scheme building, and formal certification that the Fire Sprinkler Works will not compromise the fire safety system at the scheme.
• [55] The respondent argues that the applicant body corporate has not demonstrated any real risk of serious or irreparable damage. He relies on the Olive Tree report to substantiate his claim that there is no adverse impact on the structural integrity of the building.
• [56] I respectfully disagree with that conclusion. The Olive Tree report confirms that the building's structural integrity has not been compromised as at 19 November 2025. This does not constitute confirmation that the ongoing works will not compromise the same prior to or upon the completion of the works.
• [57] It is not unreasonable for the applicant body corporate to require a structural engineer's certification that the structural integrity of the building will remain uncompromised by the works proposed. Further, any purchaser of a lot in this scheme acting with due diligence would have perused the scheme's by-laws, which specify that the committee may require such engineering certification for works proposing to change the layout of the lot or for structural alterations.
• [58] Apart from the respondent's contumelious disregard for the law, reasonable body corporate processes and community living, what appears to be somewhat appalling in the circumstances, is that the respondent's associate went to the extent of expressing to the body corporate that they changed their minds about altering the layout of the lot (and thereby eliminating the need for an engineering certification as per By-law 28.2(e)), when a few weeks later, the Olive Tree inspection revealed that that was not the case. This report noted inter alia that certain walls within the lot had in fact been removed.
• [59] This appears to be either very prompt demolition action pursuant to a further change of mind by the respondent and/or his associate, or blatant deception. I will however not presume the latter until the respondent has had a further opportunity to make submissions prior to the application for final orders being determined. In other words, I will not draw the latter inference without giving the respondent the benefit of the doubt.
• [60] However, I am satisfied that the applicant body corporate has demonstrated a risk of serious harm, i.e., the risk that unapproved works may adversely impact the scheme building.
• [61] Moreover, the applicant body corporate has provided evidence of the respondent's contractors using the common electrical power supply. This evidence has not been countered by the respondent. While this can result in added costs to the body corporate, I note the possibility of the same being recoverable from the respondents at a later stage. However, there is a practical difficulty associated with ascertaining the recovery costs considering the respondent's (and his contractors') use of such power cannot accurately be measured at this stage. I note that there has been no agreement between the parties in this regard.
• [62] In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the nature and urgency of the circumstances warrant interim relief.

• [63] The by-laws clearly empower the applicant body corporate to require the information it has sought (all of which appear to me to be prima facie reasonable demands in the circumstances) as a pre-requisite to granting approval.
• [64] I note that the respondent has been aggrieved by what he perceives to be an inordinate delay on the applicant body corporate's part in responding to his application. I am sympathetic given time is of the essence to him, considering his submission suggests that he wishes to swiftly renovate the lot and perhaps sell it. There may also be financial commitments associated with the purchase of the lot that further compels him to carry out the renovations expeditiously.
• [65] However, this does not justify proceeding with the works sans body corporate approval. I agree with the applicant body corporate that if there was any unreasonable action or inordinate delay on its part, the correct and lawful course of action for the respondent would be to challenge the same at an appropriate forum. In other words, the respondent ought to have 'complied and complained', i.e., complied with the by-laws and complained of the applicant body corporate's purported inaction.
• [66] Furthermore, I also note the respondent's claim that lodging an application for the works was a condition precedent to the purchase of the lot, and that it cannot unreasonably withhold consent. I agree with the latter, and there is nothing to suggest that the applicant body corporate doesn't either. However, that does not mean that it cannot require the respondent to provide further information acting reasonably. The applicant body corporate is not required to (and I may even say that it would not be prudent for it) to rely solely on the perceived bona fides of the respondent (or any other lot owner in like circumstances) that the proposed works will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the building. I reiterate that it is not unreasonable for it to require appropriate engineering and fire safety certification.
• [67] Furthermore, the applicant body corporate was not acting unreasonably in requiring the submission of proper plans. The respondent seemingly prefers flexibility in deciding on the specific components of the lot that he wishes to alter, such as the flooring type or the blinds/curtains. However, any need for such flexibility does not prevail over the requirement for body corporate approval for those works.
• [68] Accordingly, I am satisfied that the applicant body corporate has demonstrated a prima facie case and raised a serious legal question.

• [69] On the one hand, the respondent may incur financial loss if I were to grant the interim relief sought by the applicant body corporate. I have also considered that his financial circumstances may be such that the halting of the works may impact his ability to remunerate his contractors or employees and/or meet other financial commitments. This is not a trivial consequence.
• [70] On the other hand, in circumstances where the applicant body corporate has been prima facie acting reasonably (an issue that has not been finally determined at this stage), it has to date not been provided the certifications it seeks. There is accordingly a safety risk associated with these unapproved works (in the absence of detailed plans and certifications), to the scheme and those living there.
• [71] In my view, the balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo, i.e., it favours an order for the works to cease until such time that the applicant body corporate may approve the works, or until this dispute is finally determined at adjudication.

• [72] I am satisfied that the applicant body corporate has demonstrated that interim relief is warranted in the circumstances of this dispute.

[7] The CMS includes the scheme's by-laws

[8] Sections 276)(1)(a) and (b) of the Act

[10] See Brighton on Broadwater Breezes [2018] QBCCMCmr 243 at [8]

[13] For general principles see for e.g., Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46 and SDW2 Pty Ltd v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] QSC 1

[14] Cohen v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 70 at [6]

[15] Meagher, Gummow and Lehane's Equity: Doctrines & Remedies (J.D. Heydon, M.J. Leeming, P.G. Turner) (Fourth Edition) (Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2002) at [21-395]; Bingham & Anor v 7-Eleven Stores P/L [2003] QCA 402 at [106]-[108]