//
austlii:qld/QBCCMCmr/2025/438
General information, not legal advice.
QBCCMCmr
2025-12-08
Original judgment source is linked above.
Body Corporate for the Dorchester (respondent) All owners (affected persons)
Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (), and (3)(a)
Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020 (Accommodation Module)
MAINTENANCE - Where ageing rooftop waterproofing membrane requires replacement - whether structures in rooftop exclusive use area need to be removed to facilitate membrane replacement.
1. The application for interim orders is dismissed.
I HEREBY CERTIFY this is a true copy of the order and reasons for decision.
Dated this 8th day of December 2025.
R Miskinis, Adjudicator
[1] The applicant seeks an interim orders to stop proposed works by the body corporate.
[2] This is a lengthy application, received by this Office late on 2 December. Following receipt by case management staff, the application was amended on 3 December and referred to me later that day.
[3] The Applicant is Mr Jordan Huang, the owner of Lot 32 in the Dorchester, a 33-lot scheme in Surfers Paradise, Queensland. The Applicant has had exclusive use of the rooftop area directly above Lot 32 (the Exclusive Use Area) since purchasing the lot in March 1998. The Respondent is the Body Corporate for the Dorchester CTS 10749.
[4] The applicant seeks the following interim order:
[5] The applicant also seeks the following final orders:
8. Upon receiving the engineer and building quotes, the Body Corporate as soon as possible seek approval for:
[6] This scheme is a 17 level apartment building at Surfers Paradise. The applicant is the owner of Lot 32 on the top level of the building (Level R). The applicant also has exclusive use of the common property rooftop above Lot 32 (Level S).1 When the applicant purchased Lot 32 in March 1998, there was an existing structure on the rooftop exclusive use area, known as the 'Solarium'. Soon after purchase, the respondent built a smaller structure containing a bathroom that is attached to the Solarium and is known as the 'Amenity Annex'.
[7] However at an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) held on 19 November 2025, the Body Corporate passed a Resolution2 to:
[8] The Body Corporate also issued an Entry Notice on 26 November 2025 to access the Exclusive Use Area o carry out demolition works authorised at the EGM to enable the body corporate to undertake rectification of the waterproofing membrane.
Applicant's Grounds for Challenging the Resolution and Entry Notice
[9] The Applicant seeks to have the Demolition Resolution found invalid, void, and of no effect, and argues that the Body Corporate failed to act reasonably, contrary to sections 94 and 100(5) of the Act. The applicant alleges that there are a number of grounds to support this application including the following:
1. Failure to Act Reasonably and Lack of Planning
[10] The applicant claims that the Body Corporate has not adequately planned or obtained necessary quotes for Rectification Works or investigated alternatives to demolition.
[11] The applicant says the "Demolition Resolution" risks incurring unnecessary and significant costs in excess of $200,000. The costs for demolition and uncertain reconstruction are potentially much higher than the potential cost of rectification if the Solarium is structurally sound ($500,000+GST).
[12] It is also argued that removal of tiles on the rooftop will further damage and destroy the waterproofing membrane and expose the rooftop during the wettest time of the year and holiday construction shutdown period, making the lot susceptible to water leaks.
1 Pursuant to By-law 19 contained in the CMS, recorded 8 March 2022, Titles dealing number 721527735.
2. Invalid EGM Resolution - Beyond Major Spending Limit
[13] Secondly, the applicant says the cost of the Demolition Works ($216,150) exceeds the Body Corporate's major spending limit (which the Applicant believes to be $10,000).
[14] Section 163 of the Accommodation Module requires that if the cost exceeds the major spending limit, the owners must be given copies of at least two quotations.
[15] The applicant says the Body Corporate provided only a single quote for the Demolition Works, contrary to section 163. The Applicant challenges the Body Corporate's claim that only one contractor was willing to quote, given the substantial cost involved.
3. Invalid EGM Resolution - Alleged Explanatory Material Defects
[16] On 13 November 2025, prior to the Extraordinary General Meeting held on 19 November 2025, the Applicant's lawyers sent a letter to other lot owners, advising of the Applicant's position on the Demolition Resolution.3
[17] On 18 November 2025, the Body Corporate sent a letter to all lot owners responding to the Applicant's letter of 13 November 2025.4
[18] The applicant argues that the letter to lot owners on 18 November 2025 (responding to the Applicant's letter) constituted "explanatory material". Further, the applicant states that this material was distributed less than 21 days before the EGM (held on 19 November 2025), which contravened Section 81 of the Accommodation Module. It is claimed that the Body Corporate acted contrary to Section 80(8) by distributing material in a manner not permitted by the Accommodation Module.
[19] The Applicant argues that the Amenity Annex, approved in 2000, became part of the common property. However the Body Corporate subsequently passed a 2022 Resolution to rescind the approval.
[20] The Applicant states that they have an appeal pending before the Queensland Court of Appeal (CA9058/24) regarding the validity of the 2022 Rescission Resolution, with the decision reserved.
[21] The Applicant submits that to remove the Amenity Annex, which is common property, the Body Corporate requires a resolution without dissent under Section 174 of the Accommodation Module, which it does not possess.
[22] On 27 November 2025, the Body Corporate's lawyers emailed the Applicant's lawyers advising that they were instructed that an Entry Notice has been given in the evening on 26 November 2025 and that works would commence from 4 - 18 December 2025.5
[23] The applicant argues that the Entry Notice issued on 26 November 2025 was defective because it was confusing and possibly incomplete. It is also claimed that the actual notice was not enclosed in the email version sent to the tenant.
[24] The applicant notes that the Entry Notice states its purpose is "rectification of the waterproof membrane on the roof". The Applicant argues that the Body Corporate is not authorized or required to carry out this work because it has not yet passed a resolution to undertake the rectification.
[25] The applicant also says that an Entry Notice was sticky taped to the front door of Lot 32. However It believes the covering letter to the Entry Notice is confusing. Changes have obviously been made 'in tracking' during its drafting, and it has been 'given', both printed and emailed, with those changes still in tracking. It argues that the email and its attached letter are
not sufficient for a notice for the purposes of section 163 of the Act because it does not state when the power to enter the lot or common property will be exercised. Accordingly, it is submitted that no written notice has been given.
[26] The applicant seeks the following interim order:
[27] The core dispute concerns the Body Corporate's decision to proceed with demolition of two structures located in the Exclusive Use Area. It says that the demolition work is necessary to enable it to perform waterproofing rectification works on the ageing roof membrane.
[28] The two structures located in the Exclusive Use Area are the Solarium and the Amenity Annex.
[29] The only issue to decide at this time is whether an interim order is warranted. However, to determine that question, it is necessary to consider the substantive issue in dispute.
[30] Section 276(1) of the Act provides that:
An adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances (including a declaratory order) to resolve a dispute, in the context of a community titles scheme, about-
(a) a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the community management statement; or
(b) the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under the Act or the community management statement; or
(c) a claimed or anticipated contractual matter about-
(i) the engagement of a person as a body corporate manager or service contractor for a community titles scheme; or
(ii) the authorisation of a person as a letting agent for a community titles scheme.
[31] An order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting, in a way stated in the order (section 276(2)). An adjudicator's order may contain ancillary and consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate (section 284(1)).
[32] Further, section 279 provides that:
(1) The adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates.
(a) has effect for a period (not longer than 1 year) stated in the order; and
(b) may be extended, varied, renewed or cancelled by the adjudicator until a final order is made;
(c) may be cancelled by a later order made by the adjudicator; and
(d) if it does not lapse or is not cancelled earlier, lapses when
(i) the application is withdrawn; or
(ii) the commissioner gives the person who made the application a written notice under section 241 rejecting the application; or
(iii) a final order is made by an adjudicator to whom the application is referred. ...
[33] While section 243 of the Act provides that notice of an adjudication application must be given to the respondent and all affected persons, section 247 of the Act provides that where an interim order is sought, the application may be referred even though notice of the application has not been given under section 243 of the Act.
[34] Due to the urgency of the matter I have proceeded with this application for interim orders without firstly seeking submissions from the respondent. However submissions will be sought before any further orders are made. If necessary, it is possible for me to make further interim orders.
[35] As outlined above, the applicant is seeking both interim and final orders. The only issue at this time is whether an interim order is warranted. Any order granted must be just and equitable.6 An interim order will not be granted unless it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.7 The examples in the Act indicate the usual circumstances where an interim order might be made are in the nature of injunctive relief. An applicant must establish that the circumstances warrant an interim order. An interim order will not be made if the only urgency is a desire to expedite the dispute.
[36] In order to make an interim order an adjudicator must be satisfied an applicant has established that it has a prima facie case8 and the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief.9 That is, an adjudicator must balance the inconvenience of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused, against the inconvenience of refusing relief now if final orders are ultimately granted. Of particular relevance is evidence an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm.
[37] The case of SDW2 Pty. Ltd. V JLF Corporation Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 1 provides some guidance as to when it would be appropriate to make an interlocutory injunction at paragraph [21]:
The legal principles governing the disposition of an application for interlocutory injunction were discussed by me in Stacks Managed Investments Ltd v Tolteca Pty Ltd [2015] QSC 234 at 3 to 5 and again in Tribal Health Pty Ltd v Flush Fitness Pty Ltd [2016] QSC 103. In the latter case I summarised relevant principle in these terms (at [23]):
(a) The law in Australia has long regarded it to be necessary to make two main inquiries: (i) whether the applicant has shown that it has a prima facie case; and (ii) whether the applicant has shown that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the relief claimed.
(b) The significance of the requirement that a prima facie case be shown is elaborated upon in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 572 and Live Earth Resource Management Pty Ltd v Live Earth LLC [2007] FCA 1034 at [11] to [13].
(c) The considerations brought to bear on the balance of convenience requirement were the subject of discussion in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill and Bowen Central Coal Pty Ltd v Aquila Coal Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 334, the latter case clarifying that the adequacy of an award of damages and the question of the sufficiency of the usual undertaking were to be considered as part of the totality of the balance of convenience question.
(d) The progression of the two main inquiries is not a mechanical exercise. Whether the relief sought is prohibitory or mandatory, the Court should take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to have been "wrong" in the sense of granting an injunction to a party who fails to establish his right at an ultimate trial, or in failing to grant an injunction to a party who succeeds at trial. In making that decision, the Court should weigh in the balance all relevant factors, including matters pertaining to the strength of the case to be tried and the balance of convenience.
8 Also described as a serious question to be tried.
9 SDW2 Pty Ltd v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 001
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats [2001] HCA 63
[38] The applicant must therefore show:
(a) there are urgent circumstances;
(b) there is a prima facie case of sufficient merit to justify relief; and
(c) the balance of convenience between the parties justifies the order.
[39] Issues for my consideration at this point in time are whether the applicant has made out a prima facie case regarding the following:
• Has adequately planned or obtained quotes for Rectification Works
[40] The core dispute concerns the Body Corporate's decision to proceed with demolition of two structures located in the Exclusive Use Area, which it says are necessary to perform rectification works on the ageing roof waterproofing membrane. The two structures located in the Exclusive Use Area are the Solarium and the Amenity Annex. From previous adjudication decisions, referred to below, it is evident that :
[41] A primary concern of the body corporate is to ensure that the building is kept in a good state of repair. The maintenance obligations of the body corporate are set out in section 170 of the Accommodation Module which provides as follows:
170 Duties of body corporate about common property - Act, s 152
(1) The body corporate must maintain common property in good condition, including, to the extent that common property is structural in nature, in a structurally sound condition.
Note - For utility infrastructure included in the common property, see section 20 of the Act .
(2) To the extent that lots included in the community titles scheme are created under a building format plan of subdivision, the body corporate must -
(a) maintain in good condition -
(i) railings, parapets and balustrades on, whether precisely, or for all practical purposes, the boundary of a lot and common property; and
(ii) doors, windows and associated fittings situated in a boundary wall separating a lot from common property; and
(iii) roofing membranes that are not common property but that provide protection for lots or common property; and
(b) maintain in a structurally sound condition the following elements of scheme land that are not common property -
(i) foundation structures;
(ii) roofing structures providing protection;
(iii) essential supporting framework, including load-bearing walls.
[42] I note that a Certificate of Classification for the main tower structure was issued by the City of Gold Coast on 23 September 1981, so the building is now more than 45 years old. It consists of steel reinforced concrete floor slabs supported on reinforced concrete columns and masonry walls. Such a building requires periodic maintenance of paintwork and waterproofing membranes to keep the building watertight and to prevent degradation of concrete surfaces.
[43] The rooftop concrete slab is made waterproof by a membrane and the Body Corporate has received expert advice to the effect that the waterproof membrane on the roof of the building needs replacement.
[44] At an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) held on 19 November 2025, the Body Corporate passed a Resolution10 to:
[45] The applicant nevertheless claims that the Body Corporate has not adequately investigated alternatives to demolition. On 13 November 2025, prior to the 19 November 2025 EGM, the applicant's lawyers wrote to lot owners, stating, inter alia, the following:
The Body Corporate has recently circulated a Notice of an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) to be held on 19 November 2025 during which you will be asked to vote on a resolution which is essentially that:
It is not certain that the entire solarium must be removed. There is a reasonable probability that the solarium roof is actually connected to the concrete shear core wall of the building by starter bars and is therefore sufficiently secured to deal with the necessary wind forces. If that is the case:
Our client, at his cost, has previously obtained two reports from Booth Engineers who investigated whether the solarium roof is actually connected to the building's shear core. Each report is inconclusive however, Booth Engineers reported that, based on the designs of the solarium and building and the lack of any gap between the solarium roof and the building, it is likely that starter bars protruding from the solarium roof to the shear core wall do in fact exist. Booth Engineers recommended that local destructive tests from the surface of the external permanent formwork slab be undertaken under the guidance of a RPEQ Engineer to verify starter bars and their connection details to the concrete shear wall.
10 By 13 votes in favour; 3 votes against; and 2 abstentions (Referred to as the "Demolition Resolution")
Our client is proposing that the Body Corporate issue a new notice to the owners of another EGM (with appropriate notice) containing the following motions:
Our client considers that the Body Corporate acting per the above motions will significantly reduce the costs to the Body Corporate (and all owners) and have all the above issues addressed as soon as possible, to the benefit of all owners at The Dorchester.
[46] On 18 November 2025, prior to the 19 November 2025 EGM, the body corporate wrote to lot owners, stating, inter alia, the following:
We are aware of a letter dated 13 November 2025 from Ellem Warren Napa Lawyers acting on behalf of the Owner of the Owner of Lot 32, Mr Jordan Huang, which was sent to many Lot Owners, the Body Corporate Manager and Committee Members (the "letter").
The purpose of this letter is for the Committee to address the assertions contained within the letter.
By way of background, Mr Huang and the Body Corporate have been in dispute with each other regarding the "solarium" constructed on the roof of the Scheme for close to 10 years. Those proceedings have involved multiple applications to the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management.
The Body Corporate called an EGM to be held on the 19th of November 2025 to vote on the removal of the solarium and the amenity annex. The reason for calling the meeting was the long period of silence from Mr Huang.
In relation to the amenity annex, both the BCCM and QCAT have ruled that the Body Corporate has validly withdrawn authority for it, and that the Body Corporate is lawfully entitled to seek to have it removed.
As Lot Owners will be aware, construction will commence next door at the old Anglesea site in the near future. Once it does, crane access from that site will not be available, and any works requiring crane access will become considerably more costly, including potentially requiring road closures and council permits.
The Body Corporate has obtained its own advice regarding the roof and the solarium. In addition, because of the standard of the roof and the delay we have experienced in attempting to address it, the Body Corporate is now in a situation where our insurance is at risk.
The Body Corporate has obtained its own advice regarding drainage on the roof. We defer to the opinion of those experts regarding the appropriate way to address the roof waterproofing.
The report by SDX makes no reference to the unauthorised, uncertified drainage/ plumbing works undertaken by MR Huang. The Body Corporate has received advice to the effect that drainage issues can only be addressed once the structures are removed.
The BCCM and QCAT have found that the Body Corporate validly withdrew authority for Mr Huang to have the Amenity annex. The suggestion that Mr Huang cannot be required to remove the Amenity Annex is incorrect.
The Amenity annex is attached to the Solarium. It is necessary to remove both in order to perform the rooftop remediation works.
Mr Huang has had more than a decade to provide evidence for his claims. Rather than doing so, he has seemingly attempted to obstruct every attempt to resolve the matter.
The Committee believe there has been a loss of amenity to all Lot Owners, damage to units, increased insurance premiums, a period where insurance was denied to the Body Corporate and substantial costs to the Body Corporate for engineer's reports, legal fees and bracing the structure.
The value and saleability of all lots in the scheme have been affected. It is only the bracing of the structure that has enabled the Body Corporate to maintain insurance.
We have repeatedly asked Mr Huang to fix the structure and provide certification of the works performed - if he had done that, there would be no issue.
Despite years having passed, Mr Huang has been unable or unwilling to engage an engineer or certifier who will provide the necessary documentation. To restate the point above, if Mr
Huang had provided the required certification, then we would not be in this situation. If Mr Huang can provide documentation supporting his assertion that the structure and waterproofing can be engineer certified, the matter could be resolved.
[47] This dispute has been the subject of various prior adjudications including
[48] In The Dorchester [2021] QBCCMCmr 549, the body corporate sought an order to compel Mr Huang to remove a structure referred to as an "amenities annex" from his exclusive use area on the rooftop. The body corporate wished to repair the rooftop waterproofing membrane and gain access to utility infrastructure beneath the amenities annex, believing the condition of the latter was likely responsible for water ingress to the building. It did not want the annex reinstated following the repairs as it wished to retain access to the utility infrastructure for the purposes of monitoring and maintenance.
[49] In dismissing that application, the adjudicator said that the body corporate was entitled to inspect and perform work within Mr Huang's exclusive use area, which might include the temporary removal of his amenities annex if necessary, pursuant to section 163 of the Act.
[50] However, he pointed out that the body corporate had approved the installation of the amenities annex by special resolution on 29 June 2000, and because it had never rescinded that decision, it could not insist upon the permanent removal of the annex from the rooftop while the decision to allow it remained in effect. He also noted that a body corporate resolution can be rescinded or amended by a resolution of equal value.11
[51] Subsequently, at an annual general meeting on 17 March 2022, the body corporate passed motion 10 in the following terms by special resolution:
Motion 10. Rescindment of Approval for the Placement of an Amenities Structure on the Exclusive Use Rooftop Area above Unit 32 (Special Resolution)
RESOLVED that the retrospective approval given by special resolution on 29 June 2000 for the amenities structure (bathroom) to be placed on the exclusive use area above Unit 32 be rescinded.
[52] The validity of this resolution was challenged by Mr Huang and this dispute was considered in
The Dorchester [2023] QBCCMCmr 220. Adjudicator Stone dismissed that challenge.12
[53] In that decision the adjudicator stated:
At face value, motion 10 is a decision that is within the general powers and functions of the body corporate. The body corporate is responsible for administering the common property for the benefit
12 The Dorchester [2023] QBCCMCmr 220
of owners,13 and the rooftop and utility infrastructure that emerges upon it are common property.14 The body corporate may authorise an owner to make an improvement to an exclusive use area,15 as it did with respect to the amenities annex in June 2000, but it may also amend or revoke its previous decisions by passing a resolution of the same type.16
[54] Mr Huang appealed the decision,17 arguing that the decision contravened the Human Rights Act because an adjudicator is a public entity and the decision was made without considering his human rights.18
[55] In June 2024, QCAT dismissed the appeal.19 In short, QCAT found that adjudication is not a function of a public nature under s 10 of the HR Act and the Act does not apply to the adjudication. The adjudicator's decision related to an act or decision of a private nature between the lot owner and the body corporate. Therefore, the HR Act did not apply and the decision was not infected by an error of law. Further, the learned member of QCAT found that on the evidence before him the adjudicator's decision could not be said to be unreasonable for the purposes of s 289 of the BCCM Act.20
[56] Subsequently in The Dorchester [2024] QBCCMCmr 406 the adjudicator stated:
The Amenity Annex was, but is no longer an approved improvement to common property. On that basis, regardless of its condition, the body corporate is entitled to insist on its removal. I consider the respondent should act promptly to remove it and make good any damage to the common property. If the respondent fails to do so, the body corporate could resolve to undertake the work that the respondent is responsible for, giving proper notice under section 163 of the Act to do so, and recover the cost from the respondent as a debt.
The Solarium is a different matter. It is apparent the Solarium cannot currently be certified as structurally sound. However, that does not mean the only viable option is to permanently remove it. The body corporate has not established that the Solarium cannot be rectified in some way, and indeed concedes that it can. An adjudicator must be satisfied there is a proper legal basis for the relief sought. The applicant's preference for removal is not sufficient basis for an order requiring that to occur. Moreover, I am not satisfied that the body corporate has validly resolved to remove the structure or engage contractors or spending on such work.
[57] Therefore, having regard to the above Adjudicator's decisions, it has been decided that:
[58] I am of the view that the above orders previously made by Adjudicators must be accepted as correct in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata. Where a party brings an action against
18 Section 24 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) relates to property rights. It provides that: (1) All persons have the right to own property alone or in association with others, and (2) A person must not be arbitrarily deprived of the person's property.
19 Huang v Body Corporate for the Dorchester CTS 10749 [2024] QCATA 64
20 I note that Mr Huang has appealed QCAT's decision to the Court of Appeal20 and is awaiting the outcome of that appeal.
another for a particular cause, and judgment is given, they cannot bring another action against the same party for the same cause. Issue estoppel also arises where a determination directly involving an issue of fact or law disposes of the issue once and for all, so that it cannot afterwards be raised between the same parties.21
[59] The next question for consideration is whether the Body Corporate can also remove the Solarium. The Amenity Annex is attached to the Solarium and the body corporate says expert advice that it has received is that It is necessary to remove both the Amenity Annex and Solarium in order to perform the rooftop remediation works.
[60] In this regard I have perused the Structural Performance Assessment Report dated 18 August 2024, which was obtained by the body corporate from Structural Diagnostics (SDx).
[61] In short, the Report focused on assessing the structural integrity and safety of the retrofitted Solarium structure. The central objective was to evaluate the Solarium's capacity to withstand ultimate wind and earthquake design actions, utilizing physical inspection and finite element analysis software. The report details a complex construction history involving several unapproved modifications and reveals significant discrepancies between documented plans and the as-built conditions, particularly concerning the insufficient use of hold-down bolts within the supporting unreinforced masonry.
[62] Structural Diagnostics analysis concluded that the Solarium is a freestanding structure separate from the main building's shear core, and insufficient structural capacity to resist the minimum applicable seismic and wind forces. It says the primary structural deficiency results from the use of unreinforced masonry to support the Solarium, with the unreinforced masonry having limited structural capacity due to the structural system adopted for the Solarium to withstand lateral forces, that is, through moment frame resistance.22 The report recommends that to ensure the safety of occupants or the public and prevent structural damage, temporary make-safe measures or demolition of the Solarium.
[63] Due to these critical deficiencies and the high risk of catastrophic failure, the report urgently recommends immediate temporary make-safe measures and either permanent structural rectification or the demolition of the Solarium.
Whether the body corporate should have obtained more than one quote as the cost of the Demolition Works ($216,150) exceeds the Body Corporate's major spending limit.
[64] Section 163 (2) of the Accommodation Module requires that if the cost exceeds the major spending limit, the owners must be given copies of at least two quotations. However this is subject to subsection (6) which provides that if, for exceptional reasons, it is not practicable to obtain 2 quotations, a single quotation must be obtained and must accompany the notice of the meeting.
[65] The explanatory schedule accompanying the Notice of EGM states that the Body Corporate has sought quotations for the removal of the solarium from multiple contractors, only one is willing to provide a quote for the demolition.
[66] It is not unusual for various trades or professions to decline provision of a specific dollar figure for proposed works because so much depends on things that are not known to them at that time. In addition there are often a limited number of contractors willing to undertake particular types of work.23
Whether Explanatory material accompanied the voting paper in accordance with section 80 of the Accommodation Module.
21 See for example Clarke & Anor v Body Corporate for Turner Park Shopping Village CTS [2019] QCATA 51
22 See Clause 6.3 of Summary Findings in SDx Report
23 See for example Sails Corner [2019] QBCCMCmr 184, Warren v Body Corporate for Buon Vista Community Titles Scheme 14325 (No 2) [2006] QDC 398
[67] On 18 November 2025, the Body Corporate sent a letter to all lot owners responding to the Applicant's letter of 13 November 2025.24
[68] The applicant argues that the letter to lot owners on 18 November 2025 (responding to the Applicant's letter) constituted "explanatory material". Further, the applicant states that this material was distributed less than 21 days before the EGM (held on 19 November 2025), which contravened Section 81 of the Accommodation Module. It is claimed that the Body Corporate acted contrary to Section 80(8) by distributing material in a manner not permitted by the Accommodation Module.
[69] Section 80 of the Accommodation Module provides as follows:
Explanatory material accompanying voting paper [SM, s 90]
(1) A voting paper for a general meeting must be accompanied by an explanatory schedule if -
(a) the submitter of a motion stated in the voting paper gives the secretary an explanatory note about the motion, and the note is not longer than 300 words; or
(b) the voting paper is for an annual general meeting; or
(c) the voting paper includes a group of same-issue motions; or
(d) the voting paper states a motion proposing that a regulation module be applied to the community titles scheme that is different from the regulation module identified in the scheme's community management statement; or
(e) an explanatory schedule is required to accompany the voting paper under another provision of this regulation.
(2) The explanatory schedule must, for a motion mentioned in subsection (1)(a), include only the following information -
(a) the number assigned to the motion on the voting paper;
(b) the explanatory note in the form given by the motion's submitter;
(c) the submitter's name.
[70] I am of the view that the Explanatory Schedule accompanying the Notice of EGM dated 24 October 2025, complied with section 80 of the Accommodation Module.
[71] I do not believe that the Body Corporate's open letter to owners, in response to the applicant's letter was intended to be an explanatory schedule.
Whether the Notice of Entry complied with section 163 of Act.
[72] On 27 November 2025, the Body Corporate's lawyers emailed the Applicant's lawyers advising that they were instructed that an Entry Notice has been given in the evening on 26 November 2025 and that works would commence from 4 - 18 December 2025.25
[73] The applicant also acknowledges that the Entry Notice was:
[74] The applicant argues that the Entry Notice issued on 26 November 2025 was defective because it contained tracked changes and was therefore confusing. It is also claimed that although the letter referred to an attached "notice", there was no additional attached document with the email version sent to the tenant.
[75] The applicant notes that the Entry Notice states its purpose is "rectification of the waterproof membrane on the roof". The Applicant argues that the Body Corporate is not authorized or required to carry out this work because it has not yet passed a resolution to undertake the rectification.
[76] The applicant also says that an Entry Notice was sticky taped to the front door of Lot 32. It believes the covering letter to the Entry Notice is confusing because of tracking changes
made during its drafting, and it has been given, in both printed and emailed forms, with those tracking changes. It argues that the email and its attached letter are not sufficient for a notice for the purposes of section 163 of the Act because it does not state when the power to enter the lot or common property will be exercised.
[77] Section 163 of the Act provides as follows:
(1) A person (an authorised person) authorised by the body corporate for a community titles scheme may enter a lot included in the scheme, or common property the subject of an exclusive use by-law, and remain on the lot or common property while it is reasonably necessary -
(a) to inspect the lot or common property and find out whether work the body corporate is authorised or required to carry out is necessary; or
(b) to carry out work the body corporate is authorised or required to carry out.
(a) in an emergency - at any time, with or without notice of intended entry given to any person; and
(b) in other cases, subject to subsection (4) -
(i) for entry to the lot mentioned in subsection (1) - at a reasonable time after at least 7 days written notice of the intended entry has been given to -
- (A) the owner of the lot; or
- (B) if the owner is not in occupation of the lot - the occupier of the lot; and
(ii) for entry to the common property mentioned in subsection (1) - at a reasonable time after at least 7 days written notice of the intended entry has been given to -
- (A) the owner of the lot to which the exclusive use by-law attaches; or
- (B) if the owner of the lot mentioned in subsubparagraph (A) is not in occupation of the common property - the occupier of the common property; and
(iii) in compliance with the security or other arrangements or requirements ordinarily applying for persons entering the lot or the common property.
[78] Section 39 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 specifically provides that service on an individual includes delivering it personally or "by leaving it at, or by sending it by post, telex, facsimile or similar facility to...".
[79] It is unfortunate that the printed copy of the document attached to the door still contained tracked changes and that information was rather brief.
[80] However section 163 of the Act does not specify the contents of an entry notice. Except in the case of an emergency, it just requires seven days' notice and for access to be at a 'reasonable time'. In practice, a notice often states the date and time of the access and the expected duration. Acting reasonably, a body corporate would provide as much information as possible in an entry notice.
[81] The applicant also notes that the Entry Notice states its purpose is "rectification of the waterproof membrane on the roof". The Applicant argues that the Body Corporate is not authorized or required to carry out this work because it has not yet passed a resolution to undertake the rectification.
[82] However the Notice does state that the proposed entry is to carry out demolition works authorised at the EGM to enable the body corporate to undertake rectification of the waterproofing membrane.
[83] At an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) held on 19 November 2025, the Body Corporate passed a Resolution28 to:
28 By 13 votes in favour; 3 votes against; and 2 abstentions (Referred to as the "Demolition Resolution")
[84] In any event I believe it is arguable that there are emergency circumstances. The Structural Performance Assessment Report dated 18 August 2024, which was obtained from Structural Diagnostics, urgently recommends immediate temporary make-safe measures and either permanent structural rectification or the demolition of the Solarium.
[85] Structural Diagnostics' analysis concluded that the Solarium is a freestanding structure separate from the main building's shear core, with insufficient structural capacity to resist the minimum applicable seismic and wind forces. It says the primary structural deficiency results from the use of unreinforced masonry to support the Solarium, with the unreinforced masonry having limited structural capacity due to the structural system adopted for the Solarium to withstand lateral forces, that is, through moment frame resistance.29 The report recommends that to ensure the safety of occupants or the public and prevent structural damage, temporary make-safe measures or demolition of the Solarium.
[86] For the above reasons I am of the view that the application for interim orders should be dismissed. The application for final orders remains outstanding. This application will now be administered in accordance with the Act and the normal processes of this office. Submissions will be sought from the Respondent and affected parties before final orders are made.
(2006) 227 CLR 572