Storas [2026] QBCCMCmr 11 (22 January 2026)

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION - where a motion which proposed reallocating car spaces under an exclusive use by-law failed to achieve a resolution without dissent - whether the sole dissenting vote was unreasonable in the circumstances - whether the motion should be deemed passed.

[1] This application is about motions to adjust exclusive use car parking allocations.

[2] This scheme comprises 5 industrial sheds which open onto a common property car park. Under the community management statement (CMS), each lot is allocated exclusive use of 5 or 6 car spaces. However, the application says several car parks are 'mixed up' and do not 'align' with the entrance to the respective shed, which causes confusion.

[3] To address this, the committee submitted motions to an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on 2 July 2025 to adjust the allocations. Motion 2.1 proposed a new exclusive use plan and ratifying expenditure on preparing the survey plan. Motion 2.2 proposed recording a new CMS that amended the schedules and authorising the costs to do so. Both motions failed to achieve a resolution without dissent, with 3 votes for and 1 against.

[4] The respondent was the dissenting voter. The body corporate says it has made numerous attempts to ascertain the reason for their vote, but no explanation has been provided.

[5] The application seeks orders declaring the decision not to pass the motions to be unreasonable and for the motions to be declared as passed. I will consider the circumstances and the evidence of the reason for the respondents' opposition.

[6] Storas community titles scheme 54808 (Storas) is a 5-lot scheme at Yandina. The CMS shows the Commercial Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plan 325183.

An order declaring that the decision to not pass motions 2.1 and 2.2 on the EGM on 2nd July 2025 was at all times unreasonable, and that the motion be declared as having passed.

[8] 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]

[9] This application was lodged on 2 September 2025, pursuant to a resolution passed outside a committee meeting on 13 August.

[10] The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicant on some aspects of the application,[3] and the application was amended.[4]

[11] The Commissioner then invited submissions from the respondent and all owners.[5] No submissions were received.

[12] Multiple attempts were made by Commissioner's office staff to contact the respondent's principal, and the application was posted as well as emailed to them. Although the respondent did not acknowledge receipt of the application, from telephone conversations on 25 November, a member of the Commissioner's office formed the view that the respondent was aware of the application. A file note of the conversations indicated that the respondent's principal said: "If the body corporate want to do the line marking they can but this will be the last one."

[13] The application was referred to adjudication.[6] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing the submitted material.[7] I also asked the body corporate to provide a copy of the EGM notice, including the proposed new exclusive use plan. I also sought confirmation of any vote or consent of the owner of Lot 1 at the time.

[14] While the respondent did not make a submission, I am satisfied it was on notice of the application and had sufficient opportunity to respond to it.

[15] The issue in this dispute is whether the outcome of EGM Motions 2.1 and 2.2 should be overturned, so the body corporate can record a new CMS in accordance with the motions.

[16] Without limitation, schedule 5 of the Act sets out orders that can be made. Item 10 contemplates an adjudicator giving effect to a motion, or a variation of a motion proposed, if a motion requiring a resolution without dissent was not passed because of "opposition that in the circumstances is unreasonable". I will consider this application on that basis.

[17] An adjudicator may only make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances to resolve a dispute.[8] In regard to the test of whether the opposition to a proposal was unreasonable, the High Court has said the task for an adjudicator is to identify a ground of opposition and inquire as to whether that ground was a rational basis for opposition. This is to be considered in the context of the right to vote as a proprietary right of lot owners.[9] An applicant bears the onus of substantiating that a dissenting voters' opposition was unreasonable in the circumstances or otherwise that an order sought is warranted.

[18] The legislation provides for exclusive use by-laws. These attach to a lot and give the occupier of the lot the exclusive use of, or other special rights to, common property or a body corporate asset that is identified in the by-law.[10]

[19] A body corporate usually must pass a resolution without dissent to record a new CMS, including to change an exclusive use by-law.[11] Also, an exclusive use by-law can only attach to a lot, or stop applying to the lot, if the lot owner benefiting from the by-law consents in writing to the new CMS before the passing of the resolution without dissent to record the new CMS or votes personally on the resolution.[12]

[20] Motion 2.1 simply sought approval of a new exclusive use plan, and the associated expenditure and so in isolation did not require a resolution without dissent. Rather, it was Motion 2.2, which proposed recording a new CMS including the new schedules, that required a resolution without dissent. A resolution without dissent was not achieved for Motion 2.2.[13] The owner of Lot 5 voted against it.

[21] Under By-law 4 in schedule C, schedule E and the attached sketch plan A, in the current CMS 27 car spaces are allocated for exclusive use of lots. Lots 1 and 5 are allocated 6 spaces each, while Lots 2 to 4 are allocated 5 spaces each. Car spaces A to T are shown on the survey plan to be 14m2, while spaces U to AA are shown to be 13m2.

[22] Under the current allocation, the spaces allocated to Lots 1, 2 and 3 are consecutive, although they are not all directly in front of the respective lot. The spaces allocated to Lots 4 and 5 are not consecutive, and most of the spaces for Lot 4 are not adjacent to the lot.

[23] Under the proposed allocation all lots would have the same number of spaces, but the allocations would be consecutive. The changes would convert a 14m2 disabled carpark next to Lot 1 into an exclusive use car space for Lot 1, with the last space in front of Lot 5 becoming the disabled car space. This would enable the exclusive use car spaces to 'shift up' to better align with the entrance to the respective lot.

[24] The EGM notice included very clear information explaining the proposed changes. It is evident the allocations to every lot would change. But it is difficult to see that there could be any adverse impact for any owner or occupier from the changes. On its face, the proposal appears to provide a logical solution to the difficulties created by the current allocations.

[25] It is not clear from the verbal comment made by the respondent's principal whether they continue to object to the reallocation of exclusive use car parking. I am unclear if they are aware this issue is about ongoing rights to use common property and not just line marking. But in the absence of a submission or any substantive response to the issue, I am unable to identify any rational basis for opposing the new CMS. I note that Lot 2 would have least change to their exclusive use allocations.

[26] On the submitted material, I am satisfied the respondents' opposition to AGM Motion 9 was unreasonable in the circumstances. An order to deem the motion to have passed and to enable the body corporate to record the CMS would have been warranted on that basis, but for the absence of a vote or consent from the owner of Lot 1.

[27] Only the owners of Lots 2 to 5 voted at the EGM. The owner of Lot 1 did not vote. Because the exclusive use allocations to all lots were being changed by the new CMS (with some new areas being allocated to each lot and some ceasing to apply), every owner needed to vote at the EGM or provide written consent to the new CMS before the EGM.

[28] At my request, the body corporate was asked if the owner of Lot 1 consented to the change to the exclusive use allocation to their lot prior to the EGM, and for evidence of any consent be provided. Although no written response to that question was provided, the body corporate manager verbally advised that the owner of Lot 1 historically does not participate in general meetings and did not on this occasion. In the absence of evidence that the owner of Lot 1 consented to the new CMS before the EGM,[14] I am unable to make order that would enable the body corporate to implement the new CMS at this time.

[29] It is open to the body corporate to resubmit this matter to a future general meeting. It would be prudent for it to seek written consent to the changes from all owners before any such meeting, or at least from those owners who might not vote at the meeting.

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

[9] French CJ, Bell J, Keane J and Gordon J in Ainsworth v Albrecht [2016] HCA 40 at 56 and 58

[14] It is too late to seek that consent now, for the purposes of the July 2025 EGM.