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

INTERIM ORDER - whether an interim order stopping the body corporate from acting on potentially defective motions or potentially unreasonable decisions is warranted.

1. The Body Corporate for Spinnaker Main Beach CTS 9625 must not take any steps to implement Motion 2, Motion 3.2 or Motion 4 of the 26 November 2025 extraordinary general meeting, should any of those motions be passed by the body corporate at that meeting.
2. This interim order has effect until 12 months have elapsed from the date of this order, a further interim or final order for the application is issued, or until the application is withdrawn or otherwise ended.

• [1] This application concerns water ingress and maintenance issues, which has caused division and controversy at the scheme, and bears significant connection to a previous interim order, Spinnaker Main Beach [2025] QBCCMCmr 337.
• [2] The dispute concerns who is responsible for remedial works to a rooftop area that forms part of a lot. Reports describe several issues with drainage, waterproofing and design, alerting to potential causes of water ingress and concrete spalling, and recommends an extensive scope of works.
• [3] In the previous interim decision, a lot owner sought interim orders that the body corporate not act on proposed motions for the engagement of contractors to perform the scope of works, on the basis that some works may be the lot owner's responsibility. I made the interim order that the body corporate not act on the proposed motions, should they pass. The motions subject to that application did not pass, and the application for final orders was withdrawn.
• [4] The body corporate has called another general meeting. There are several motions that have some relation to the rooftop area. A majority of those motions are proposed by a group of lot owners which includes the applicants of the previous interim order.
• [5] The current application is brought by the owner of the lot where the rooftop area is located, and seeks orders that the body corporate not act on motions relating to the rooftop. Particularly, motions that suggest the lot owner is responsible for works to the area.
• [6] I have made part of the interim order sought as, based on my preliminary review, I find there are significant legal questions surrounding the validity of the three motions. I am also satisfied that the balance of convenience supports an interim order for the following reasons:
  1. Motion 2 states the lot owner must undertake works. While it appears to lack practical or enforceable impact, members of the body corporate seem to believe otherwise and may so act.
  2. Motion 3.2 seeks to hold the lot owner liable for 20% of the cost of a new waterproofing membrane on the rooftop, where works expressed in Motion 2 are performed. The justification for the 20% figure is unclear, raising questions about whether the body corporate would have acted reasonably if the motion passes. While Motion 3.2 may never be enlivened due to it being subject to the applicant undertaking other works they say they will not agree to, the complexity of the matter leaves open the possibility.
  3. Motion 4 seeks to impose requirements on the applicant for providing specific documents and adhering to specific conditions for future lot improvement requests. While the current by-laws already mandate approval for certain works to lots, the body corporate must act reasonably based on the specific circumstances of each proposal. It is arguably unreasonable to pre-emptively decide what is relevant to future requests, given their varied nature. There is no indication that Motion 4 will hinder any immediate plans of the applicant. However, and again, the complexity of the matter leaves open the possibility that the applicant may pursue works as this matter progresses.
• [7] I want to make it absolutely clear to all parties that, on a preliminary review of the material currently in front of me, noting the absence of submissions from the body corporate, it is not possible to determine quickly and definitively who is responsible for works and to what extent. My previous interim order should not be interpreted as assigning responsibility to the lot owner, nor should this decision be seen as attributing responsibility to the body corporate. At this stage, the information available only supports the preliminary conclusion that the matter requires further consideration and raises a serious legal question. Parties might be well advised to obtain further expert reports and legal advice from those that specialise in these matters.

• [8] This application for interim relief is brought by the owner of Lot 119 against the body corporate.

• [9] The scheme is a building units plan subdivision, now referred to as a building format plan subdivision (BFP), of 119 lots and common property in Main Beach on the Gold Coast. The survey plans show the scheme was registered in 1983, and depicts a single tower with 34 floors.
• [10] Most notably, Lots 119 and 118 are contained within two of the uppermost residential floors (referred to as Level FF and Level GG). The plans note that, on Level GG, there are uncovered parts (indicating an open rooftop area) and that the lot boundaries extend to ceiling height in those areas. It is not disputed that a past owner of Lot 119 made improvements to the part of their lot on Level GG, including partially enclosing an area with windows.
• [11] The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies to the scheme.

• [12] Lot 119 has suffered water ingress into the lower floor of their lot (Level FF) from the upper rooftop area of their lot (Level GG).
• [13] The body corporate obtained a report from Buildcheck dated 28 May 2025 (First Buildcheck Report). The applicant, who is the owner of Lot 119, is also the chairperson and the report lists the applicant as the representative of the body corporate whom requested the First Buildcheck Report.
• [14] Some of the notable findings of the First Buildcheck Report read as follows:

The combination of failed waterproofing, poor drainage design, and ineffective window detailing poses a significant risk to both structural elements and interior finishes of Unit 119. Without immediate and comprehensive remedial works moisture ingress will persist. Over time, this will result in larger-scale structural damage, increased maintenance costs, and potential safety hazards for occupants.

• [15] Buildcheck also provided a scope of works document to assist in a tender review. The document is dated 7 May 2025, but time stamps suggest there may have been revisions on 18 July 2025 (Buildcheck Scope of Works). The recommended works included installation of a new membrane, address incorrect falls in the substrate, installing new strip drains and constructing hobs under windows.
• [16] The body corporate called an extraordinary general meeting to be held on 2 October 2025 (October 2025 EGM), where motions proposed the engagement of a contractor to perform works to the rooftop area at the body corporate's expense. The costs were approximately $330,000 to $480,000.

• [17] The owners of another lot within the scheme lodged an application for interim orders to stop the body corporate from acting on any motion passed for contractor engagement at the October 2025 EGM (Previous Application). Interim orders are temporary orders to preserve the status quo, until the matter can be finally determined.
• [18] I made the interim orders sought in the Previous Application, Spinnaker Main Beach [2025] QBCCMCmr 337, as, on my preliminary review of the material in front of me at the time:
  1. I was satisfied the applicants raised a prima facie case for the motions being potentially invalid where an expert report notes several causes for the ingress, and it was not immediately clear whether the body corporate is responsible for those causes, nor was there an obvious intention to seek reimbursement for the works.
  2. I was satisfied the balance of convenience justified the interim relief where the cost of the proposals subject to the motions are significant, and the interim relief did not prevent the body corporate from investigating the matter further, and proposing alternative ways in processing and rectifying the issue.
• [19] The motions subject to dispute in the Previous Application did not pass at the October 2025 EGM. The applicant to the Previous Application subsequently withdrew their application for final orders on 5 November 2025. This means that the interim orders in Spinnaker Main Beach [2025] QBCCMCmr 337 have no current effect.

• [20] Since the October 2025 EGM, the applicant in this matter (the owner of Lot 119 and chairperson of the body corporate) again engaged Buildcheck, this time in their capacity as an owner, to provide another report. The applicant states they advised Buildcheck that a group of owners were of the view that the applicant is responsible for the membrane failure, either due to the installation of the tiles, or the installation of other improvements made to the area.
• [21] The applicant provided Buildcheck with minutes of a general meeting from 2010, approving the engagement of a contractor to install a membrane over the top of an existing membrane.
• [22] The Buildcheck report dated 4 November 2025 (Second Buildcheck Report) and it concludes:

...the failure of the Unit 119 roof terrace waterproofing is not the result of external factors such as lack of maintenance, drainage configuration or tile adhesion defects, but rather a direct consequence of improper substrate preparation and the non-compliant practice of applying a new membrane over an existing, compromised system.

• [23] The body corporate has called another extraordinary general meeting to be held on 26 November 2025 (Pending EGM).
• [24] The agenda for the meeting is largely comprised of motions that appear to be either petitioned or submitted by several lot owners, including the lot owner who was the applicant in the Previous Application.
• [25] Motion 2, submitted by a group of lot owners, reads as follows:

THAT the owner of Lot 119, Mr Brian Hanlon, at his cost, attend to removal of and repairs needed to the private improvements within Lot 119 to arrest on-going water penetration. Such works to be undertaken within 8 weeks of this meeting. The works are identified in the Building Condition Report prepared by Buildcheck and identified as > > "Remove existing tiles and membrane system, including grinding back to clean concrete substrate to ensure full removal of all compromised materials. Undertake localised concrete repairs in areas exhibiting signs of spalling. This includes removing loose material, treating exposed reinforcement, and reinstating with appropriate repair mortars. Regrade roof surfaces where incorrect falls are causing water ponding, ensuring compliant drainage toward all outlets and away from window perimeters. Install new strip drainage system adjacent to window line, integrated into the waterproofing system, with sufficient capacity and placement to intercept surface water before it reaches internal thresholds."

• [26] Motion 3.2, submitted by a group of lot owners and forming part of a group of same issue motion,[1] reads as follows:

THAT the Body Corporate call for 2 tenders to have a new membrane installed to the roof of Lot 119, once all preliminary > > works have been completed by the owner of Lot 119. Once a contractor has been chosen that the cost of the new membrane be borne on a shared basis of body corporate 80% and the owner of Unit 119, 20% of the total cost of the new membrane.

• [27] Motion 4, submitted by a group of lot owners, reads as follows:

THAT should the owner of Lot 119 request permission to erect any private improvements within Lot 119 that the request be put as an Ordinary Resolution of the Body Corporate accompanied by an independent Engineers Report that all works meet Building Codes and Standards. Also, the request is to be accompanied by an absolute responsibility to maintain such improvements in a good state of repair and to ensure that no water is permitted to pool, enter tile beds or percolate through grout or other surface. All costs of the request to be met by the owner of Lot 119. Any damage or accelerated damage to the waterproofing membrane is to be repaired by the owner of Lot 119.

• [28] The applicant in this matter, who is the owner of Lot 119, seeks the following final orders:

[1]. If passed at the Extraordinary General Meeting to be held on 26 November 2025, an order declaring that resolutions 2., and or 3.2, and or 4, was at all times void. > > [2]. An order declaring that the Respondent Body Corporate within three months of the date of this order is to comply with its obligations imposed on it by section 180(2)(a)(iii) Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020; and > > (a) To otherwise comply with the obligations imposed on it by section 180 of the Standard Module to prevent water ingress to Lot 119 including commencing and performing the following works ("the works") to Lot 119; > > (i) In respect to the outside open air roof terrace of Level 31; > > a. remove the existing tiles and cement bed from the outside open air terrace; and > > b. remove the existing membrane(s) back to bare concrete, and clean and prepare the concrete surface for installation of a new membrane; and > > c. repair all concrete spalling, damage, and other necessary works required to the roof before installing the new membrane; and > > d. apply or install a new membrane as recommended by the Respondents engineers; and > > e. acquire exterior tiles as chosen by the Applicant (ie the new tiles) that are a similar colour, texture, look, and quality, as the tiles being removed; and > > f. install a cement tile bed as recommended by the Respondents engineers; and > > g. lay and grout the new tiles to the same area as the previous tiles were laid; and > > h. any other works required of or incidental to the removal and installation of the roofing membrane. > > (b) To repair damage to property on Lot 119 caused by the body corporate's failure to comply with the obligations imposed on it by section 180 of the Standard Module including the following works; > > (i) to the inside of lot 119 on Level 30; > > a. repair all damage caused to the Applicants apartment, including any concrete repairs to the ceiling, plastering, and painting, and applying two or more coats of paint as recommended by the Respondents engineers of quality paint to the internal ceiling and areas of the Applicants apartment of Lot 119 as required; and > > b. remove all waste, materials, and rubbish accrued and accumulated of and incidental to the works. > > [3]. The Respondent Body Corporate within 14 days of the date of this order reimburse the Applicant as owner of Lot 119 for the costs of the engineers reports of Buildcheck paid for by the Owner of Lot 119 in the amount of $486.75;

• [29] The interim order the applicant seeks reads as follows:

Should motions 2, 3.2, and or 4 to be voted on at the Extraordinary General Meeting on 26 November 2025 are passed, the Respondent Body Corporate is restrained until final orders from acting on them.

• [30] I understand the above to mean the applicant seeks interim relief to stop the body corporate acting on those motions, until the matter is finally determined or withdrawn.

• [31] Seeking comments from those who may be affected before making an interim order is generally desirable. However, I may make interim orders without seeking submissions from the respondent or any affected parties.[2]
• [32] This application for interim orders was referred to be on 24 November, with the Pending EGM to take place on 26 November. Given the timeframe, I have not sought comment from the body corporate's committee or any affected parties.

• [33] Interim orders are temporary in their effect. Typically, their purpose is to maintain the status quo, preserving a party's rights or interest until the matter can be finally determined, usually by stopping a party from taking certain actions.
• [34] The ability for an adjudicator to make an interim order is provided for in the legislation. An adjudicator may make an interim order where satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the order is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[3] Adjudicators often follow the test applied by courts in interlocutory applications, being whether the applicant has shown that it has a prima facie case, and whether the applicant has shown that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the relief claimed.[4]
• [35] Therefore, to be successful in their application for interim orders, the applicant must satisfy me that:
  1. there is a prima facie case to justify relief, and
  2. the balance of convenience justifies the interim relief.

• [36] While I am not determining the final orders sought, determining whether there is a genuine legal issue at the interim stage requires some level of assessment of the final orders.
• [37] The onus is on the applicant to prove there is a prima facie case to justify the relief they seek. The applicant does not need to show that it is more probable than not that they will succeed. The applicant needs to show a sufficient likelihood of success to justify the interim orders pending a final determination of the matter.[5] How strong the possibility of success that is needed depends upon the nature of the rights the applicant asserts, and the consequences of the order sought.[6]

3.1.1. First final order - validity of Motion 2

• [38] I currently hold concerns that Motion 2 does not have any practical effect. The motion appears to announce that the applicant must attend to works. However, just because the body corporate passes such a motion does not mean the applicant is compelled to do so.
• [39] Whether a motion of no consequence amounts to it being void or invalid is arguable.
• [40] Although, it seems that the group of owners who submitted the motion believe it has some actionable impact or finally determines who is responsible for works on the rooftop area.
• [41] On my preliminary view, I am satisfied there is a prima facie case for Motion 2 being found void.

3.1.2. First final order - validity of Motion 3.2

• [42] The application does not directly articulate how or why Motion 3.2 is invalid. The general premise of the application is that the applicant is not responsible for any proposed works to the rooftop, as the failure of the membrane should not be attributed to the applicant.
• [43] Motion 3.2 proports to support the idea that the body corporate may undertake waterproofing membrane works in the future, but will recover 20% of such costs from the applicant.
• [44] It may be possible for the body corporate to resolve to undertake works, and recover the costs as a debt from the lot owner.[7] However, that is subject to the owner having an obligation to undertake the works in the first place under the Act, CMS or order of adjudicator or other relevant jurisdiction, and failing to carry out that obligation.[8] It is in this latter part that the tension lies.
• [45] Further and importantly, the body corporate has an obligation to act reasonably when making decisions.[9] Reasonable action is evidence-based and rational.[10]
• [46] The material in front of me includes the Pending EGM agenda which includes explanatory notes to Motion 3.2. I also have the First Buildcheck Report and the Second Buildcheck Report.
• [47] None of these materials gives me immediate confidence that the proposed figure of 20% of responsibility being attributed to the lot owner is rationally based on evidence. There are no expert reports or advices, or at least not in front of me, that suggest such apportionment. Therefore, if the body corporate passes this motion, the reasonability of that decision may be in question.
• [48] I hold concerns that my decision in the Previous Application has been interpreted to mean that the applicant is undoubtably responsible for certain works to the area. That position would be an inaccurate understanding of my previous order. To assist the parties, I will make some further comments.
• [49] I have said that water ingress disputes of this nature are complex, and largely turn on expert reports.[11] The nature of an interim order is a preliminary view,with he order made quickly, for the purpose of preserving rights until the dispute is determined. The applicant only needs to show there is a serious legal question to be answered. It does not mean that the final orders sought will undoubtably be made.
• [50] Right now, the First Buildcheck Report outlines issues within Level GG that the owner of Lot 119 may have some responsibility over. Whether this is in fact the case, and if so to what extent, has not been determined.
• [51] Responsibility remains convoluted with the Second Buildcheck Report, which says that the membrane failure is due to age or improper installation. While the Second Buildcheck Report suggests that the installation of tiles, inadequate falls and concerns with the improvements to the lot is not the reason for the membrane failure, the dispute does not appear to be limited to maintenance of the membrane under section 180(2)(a)(iii) of the Standard Module.
• [52] Notably, the First Buildcheck Report raises several issues that it says could, or is, compromising structural soundness. The lot owner has an obligation to keep their lot in 'good condition' pursuant to section 211 of the Standard Module, and on the other hand, the body corporate has an obligation to keep roofing structures in a structurally sound condition under section 180(2)(b)(ii). Causes of damage can be extremely relevant, because where there is damage to property due to another party's contravention of the legislation or CMS, a claim for repair or reimbursement can be enlivened against that party.[12]
• [53] For the avoidance of any doubt, I am not saying that either party is wholly responsible for membrane or other recommended scope of works. All that can be said at this stage is that, on my preliminary review, there are questions raised regarding responsibility of works that may need further investigation or consideration.
• [54] The parties might be well advised to obtain further reports and legal advice from professionals well versed in these matters.
• [55] On my preliminary view, I am satisfied there is a prima facie case for Motion 3.2 being invalid if it were to pass.

3.1.3. First final order - validity of Motion 4

• [56] The application does not directly articulate how or why Motion 4 is invalid.
• [57] Despite the application's failure to advance a direct reason, I will make some comments in an effort to assist the parties.
• [58] There is nothing in the legislation that requires lot owners to seek approval for improvements to a lot. Nevertheless, it is possible for the body corporate to require lot owners to seek approval for improvements to their lot, within reason. This is achieved through by-laws registered in the CMS. It appears that there may be a by-law that already requires body corporate approval for changes to lots in certain circumstances.
• [59] As I have already stated, the body corporate has an obligation to act reasonably in its decisions, which means considering relevant and disregarding irrelevant factors in the circumstances. Improvements to lots can come in many forms. It is difficult to say that it is reasonable to definitively determine what documents or terms will be relevant to unknown future requests.
• [60] On my preliminary view, I am satisfied there is a prima facie case for Motion 4 being invalid.

• [61] Following my comments in relation to the challenge of Motion 3.2, it follows that I am satisfied there is a prima facie case for the second final order sought.
• [62] Again, this is not to say the body corporate is responsible for the whole of the works, but simply that a serious legal question has been raised.

• [63] This order has little relevance to the interim relief sought, so I will decline to comment at this juncture.

• [64] I am currently satisfied there is prima facie case for the first and second final orders sought. The most relevant for the interim order being the first final order that challenges Motions 2, 3.2 and 4.
• [65] Before granting an interim order, I must balance the inconvenience to the respondent body corporate if I were to grant the interim relief now, in the knowledge that final orders might ultimately be refused, against the inconvenience to the applicant if I were to not grant relief now, in the knowledge that final orders might ultimately be granted.[13]
• [66] Based on the material currently in front of me, I am satisfied the balance of convenience justifies interim relief.
• [67] Despite my current opinion that Motion 2 has no actionable effect, it appears there are a significant numbder of members who believe otherwise, and any actions taken on that motion, whatever it may be, may cause further dispute or harm.
• [68] Motion 3.2 is only enlivened where the applicant undertakes works pursuant to Motion 2. Motion 4 may only be relevant where the applicant intends to make any changes to the lot. While the applicant presently has no intention to do any works, the situation is complicated and may certainly change, and those two motions could be enlivened.

• [69] While the grounds of the application were not particularly moving, I am still satisfied that there are serious legal questions raised in relation to the validity of any decision that may be made to pass Motions 2, 3.2 and 4, and that the balance of convenience justifies interim relief.
• [70] Currently, the division of responsibility for the recommended scope of works to the rooftop area of Lot 119 is convoluted due to several factors, and further consideration is warranted. It is not immediately apparent that one party is definitely responsible for the works.
• [71] I would strongly encourage parties obtain further reports and advice from relevant technical and legal experts.

[1] See Standard Module, s 89.

[2] Act, s 247.

[4] SDW2 Pty. Ltd. V JLF Corporation Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 1 at [21].

[5] Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 at [622-623].

[6] Australian Broadcasting Corp v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57, at [65], [19].

[7] Standard Module, s 212.

[8] Standard Module, s 212(1).

[9] Act, s 94(2).

[10] SZLGP v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1198 [15]-[16] as cited in Body Corporate For Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at [23].

[11] Spinnaker Main Beach [2025] QBCCMCmr 337 at [26].

[13] Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 at [65] citing Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 at [5].