Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), sections 227(1)(b) and 229(3)(a)

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS - whether the applicant was improperly denied a vote at the respondent's 2025 AGM; whether the AGM should be held again; whether the respondent should include the applicant in all decision-making until these questions can be determined.

Act, ss 101(2), 279(1); Standard Module, ss 10(2)(d), 102(2), 162(1)&(5), 163(1).

• [1] The applicant is a subsidiary body corporate and member of the respondent. It says the respondent changed the level of its financial contributions during the 2024-25 financial year without proper notice or authorisation, causing the applicant to owe a body corporate debt at an annual general meeting (AGM) on 30 September 2025 and to be unable to vote or nominate for membership of the respondent's committee.
• [2] The applicant seeks orders in the following terms:

1. A declaration that the exclusion of Village Centre CTS 47334 from voting and nomination rights at the 30 September 2025 AGM was unlawful due to procedural errors in issuing levy notices and classification of arrears. > > 2. That all decisions and committee elections made at the 30 September 2025 AGM which excluded Village Centre CTS 47334 from participation be declared void and of no effect, and that a new meeting be convened to re-vote on the motions and re-elect the committee with Village Centre included. > > 3. That the PBC be directed not to apply any future levy adjustments without validly issued levy notices, 30 days' notice, and general meeting approval, as required under the Standard Module.

• [3] To protect its interests while the application is being decided, the applicant also seeks the following interim orders:

1. That the Principal Body Corporate (PBC) for Ecovillage Currumbin and its committee are directed to include Village Centre CTS 47334 in all decision-making processes of the community, including voting on motions, participation in committee decisions, resolutions, and contractual arrangements, until a final determination is made in this dispute. > > 2. That the PBC is required to treat Village Centre CTS 47334 as financial and entitled to vote and nominate for committee positions at any upcoming meetings, unless and until valid levy notices are issued in accordance with sections 162 and 163 of the Standard Module, and the statutory 30-day notice period has been provided.

• [4] I am only concerned with the interim orders at this stage, which can be made if warranted by the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[1]

• [5] Members of the respondent pay contributions to fund its annual budgets in shares proportionate to their lot entitlements as recorded in the community management statement (CMS).[2] When contributions were determined for 2024-25 at an AGM on 30 September 2024, the applicant's contribution schedule lot entitlements were 1,570 of a total of 15,210 for all four members of the respondent, and its interest schedule lot entitlements were 3,350 of a total of 50,365. That meant the applicant was required to contribute some 10.3% (1,570/15,210) to the respondent's annual budgets, or approximately 6.7% to those aspects governed by the interest schedule lot entitlements,[3] with payments to be made in four-monthly instalments as follows:

• [6] On 10 October 2024, the Registrar of Titles recorded a new CMS for the respondent that increased the applicant's contribution schedule lot entitlements to 1,880 of a total of 15,520 (approx. 12.1%), and its interest schedule lot entitlements to 6,830 of 53,845 (12.7%).
• [7] The applicant says the respondent's body corporate manager did not update the lot entitlements in its software until 13 February 2025, after all three notices of contributions payable had been issued for the year in the amounts authorised at the 2024 AGM. The applicant paid the requested amounts, but the body corporate manager's software retrospectively recalculated them according to the new lot entitlements and plunged the applicant's contributions into arrears. The applicant says it was unaware it was in arrears until 18 August 2025 when new notices of contributions were issued retrospectively for the 1 November to 28 February and 1 March to 30 June periods. They sought payment of the new, higher amounts by dates in the past: 10 January and 1 March respectively.
• [8] By the time of the AGM, the applicant says it was deemed to be $22,802.54 in arrears, though that exceeded the difference between the amounts requested in the old and new notices by $5,036.11. A further notice of contributions payable for the 1 July to 31 October 2024 period that accounted for this difference was not issued until 22 October 2025, requesting payment by 18 July 2024.
• [9] Despite not yet understanding how the full amount had been calculated, the applicant says it transferred the requested $22,802.54 to the respondent on 29 September 2025, but it did not arrive in the respondent's account in time for the AGM the following day and the applicant was denied a vote and excluded from membership of the committee.[4]
• [10] There are several problems with this sequence of events.
• [11] Section 162(1) of the Standard Module states:

162 Contributions to be levied on owners > > _(1) The body corporate must, by ordinary resolution - _

(a) fix, on the basis of its budgets for a financial year, the contributions to be levied on the owner of each lot for the financial year; and

(b) decide the number of instalments in which the contributions are to be paid; and

(c) fix the date on or before which payment of each instalment is required.

• [12] Motions 5-7 of the 2024 AGM complied with these requirements. They determined the amount to be paid per unit of lot entitlement to raise the administrative fund, insurance fund, and sinking fund budgets stated in the motions, and when each instalment was due to be paid. They passed by ordinary resolution.
• [13] The respondent was obviously aware at the AGM that the lot entitlements were about to change. The request to record a new CMS was lodged with the Registrar of Titles a week prior. Motions 5-7 each included the following sentence:

If there is a change in lot entitlements for any Lot during the year then from the next levy after the change the levy per lot entitlement indicated in the table will be applied to the new level of lot entitlements for that Lot.

• [14] But the total number of lot entitlements increased when the new CMS was recorded. By applying the same rate per lot entitlement to more lot entitlements, the body corporate would raise more than the specified budget contrary to section 162(1)(a)'s requirement that the body corporate fix contributions "on the basis of its budgets for the financial year".
• [15] For example, motion 5 proposed raising an administrative fund budget of $653,161 by levying $42.94 per contribution schedule lot entitlement at a time when there were 15,210 in total. With 15,520 contribution schedule lot entitlements under the new CMS, a rate of $42.94 would raise $666,428.80 if applied across the whole year.
• [16] The motions also stated that any changed lot entitlements would apply "from the next levy after the change". With the new CMS recorded on 10 October 2024, the next levy was the one due on 15 November for the 1 November to 28 February period. Yet the respondent also retrospectively increased the applicant's contributions for the 1 July to 31 October period, contrary to the motions. The increased contributions for that period were not authorised by ordinary resolution as required by section 162(1)(a).
• [17] Two of the retrospective notices requested payment by dates different to those authorised pursuant to motions 5-7 (18 July 2024 and 10 January 2025 instead of 1 July and 15 November 2024). The new dates were not decided by ordinary resolution as required by section 162(1)(c).
• [18] None of the revised notices provided the minimum 30 days' notice before the contributions were due.[5] They sought payment by dates in the past. If they had given 30 days' notice from the dates they were issued, payment would not have been due by the time of the AGM when the applicant was deemed to owe a body corporate debt.
• [19] There are clearly several legal issues to resolve at final orders, though they are unlikely to justify declaring the entire AGM void as sought. Every motion at the AGM was decided 3-0. The applicant's vote could not have made a difference.
• [20] The only thing that might have changed if the applicant had not been disenfranchised is the composition of the committee. With four committee positions available and only four lots, the applicant's nominee should have automatically been elected if not deemed ineligible.
• [21] That possibility does not warrant the requested interim orders. The applicant asks that, pending final orders, the respondent and its committee:
  1. include it in all decision-making processes, including voting on motions and participating in committee decisions, resolutions, and contractual arrangements, and
  2. treat it as financial and entitled to vote and nominate for committee positions at any upcoming meetings.
• [22] But I am not aware that the applicant's participation in any future meetings is in doubt, aside from committee meetings. The applicant paid the additional contributions sought by the respondent, albeit not in time for the 2025 AGM. It is presumably no longer considered to owe a body corporate debt and is entitled to vote and nominate for the committee as usual.
• [23] No urgency has been established for an interim order with respect to the applicant's participation in committee decisions. The applicant has not shown that it is likely to suffer a detriment if the question of its committee membership waits to be decided at final orders with the benefit of submissions from all parties. The applicant has not had a representative on the committee since at least the 2024 AGM, where it was also deemed unfinancial.
• [24] The applicant referred to several significant decisions made at the 2025 AGM in support of its application for interim orders, such as the engagement of a body corporate manager, the commencement of legal proceedings, and the adoption of budgets. But those were general meeting decisions that the applicant could not have changed. The committee must only put them into effect, irrespective of whether the applicant's nominee is a member.[6]
• [25] I am not satisfied that the nature or urgency of the circumstances warrant the interim orders sought, notwithstanding that there are legal questions to resolve at final orders. The application for interim orders is accordingly dismissed.

[2] Standard Module, s 162(5).

[3] Standard Module, ss 197, 200 & 201.

[4] Standard Module, ss 10(2)(d) & 102(2).

[5] Standard Module, s 163(1).

[6] Act, s 101(2).