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

INTERIM ORDER - whether an interim order is warranted.

1. The application for interim orders is dismissed.

• [1] This application is about a committee resolution.
• [2] At an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) in February 2025 the body corporate purported to pass motions for works to address the structural integrity and water ingress issues in the building. That included engaging a contractor for almost $2.5 million, and funding that work. An owner disputed the resolutions and sought interim orders.[1] An adjudicator was satisfied there were questions about the validity of the resolutions. The adjudicator made an interim order in April restraining the body corporate from implementing the EGM resolutions until the substantive issues in dispute could be determined.[2]
• [3] It appears a new committee was then elected at the annual general meeting in May. In June the new committee wrote to owners proposing an alternative approach to the water ingress repairs. In July another EGM was held. At that meeting the body corporate resolved to rescind the disputed February resolutions. The original application was subsequently withdrawn.
• [4] A notice dated 24 September was given of motions to be voted on outside a committee meeting. Motion 2 proposed building repairs to Lot 8 (the 24 September motion). The applicant disputed that motion. The committee rescinded the notice on 30 September.
• [5] A new notice of committee motions to be voted on dated 7 October was then issued. Motion 2 in that notice proposed "That the body corporate approve works to Lot 8 at a cost of $13,587 + GST, to rectify and enable John Speare Constructions to carry out investigation necessary to produce a scope of works for other affected areas of the building." (the 7 October motion). An explanatory note said the works would address the issue in Lot 8 and enable the builder to investigate similar problems and prepare a full scope of works for the building. It said other contractors had been approached but had declined to provide a full scope of works. It said once the scope of works was prepared, it would be used to call tenders for major remedial works to be put to the body corporate for approval. The motion passed.[3]
• [6] The applicant disputes the 7 October motion. The various issues raised in the application include that the committee is entering a contract outside its delegation, the motion exceeds the committee's spending limit, two quotes are required, the committee is trying to break the project down on an apartment-by-apartment basis rather than a whole-of-building project to avoid the spending limit, the expenditure has not been budgeted for, there is no information on how it will be funded, existing windows are to be refitted contrary to previous advice, the contractor has a long-standing relationship with a committee member, and owners will be disadvantaged where they have no oversight of the total project timelines or cost. The applicant wants the work suspended until the correct process is followed.
• [7] The applicant seeks various orders. In the interim, they want the committee not to enter into a contract based on Motion 2. At this time, I will consider whether interim orders are warranted.

• [8] The Edge on Margate Beach community titles scheme 33790 (The Edge) is a 21-lot scheme at Burleigh Waters. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Accommodation Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plan 178794, which is a building format plan of subdivision.
• [9] This application seeks an interim order:

That the Committee be prevented from entering into a contract that may be outside their delegation to engage in from the VOC motion 2 dated 7/10/2025 until final order is made.

Additionally, the contractor they are trying to engage via the VOC Motion 2 dated 7 October 2025 is known to have an existing and long standing relationship with one of the Committee members and it needs to be clarified if that Committee member is intending to vote. If the intended contracting and work is allowed to proceed, it would exceed the Committee delegation and should be embargoed from being implemented. All work on Body Corporate assets should be suspended until the correct process is followed. Requesting that the motion not passed and/or submitted until final order is dealt with.

• [10] The application then seeks the following final orders:

That motion 2 on VOCM 7 October 2025 be not granted and do not proceed with the work. See attachment Section 6 CTS33790 Orders Sought.

1. Motion 2 in the first Notice of Motion to be Voted on Outside of a Committee Meeting dated 26th September, 2025 sought to approve an amount of $14,990 excluding GST for repair to the water ingress in Lot 8. This amount, when GST is accounted, is actually $16,489 so exceeded the Relevant Limit for Committee Spending in accordance with Section 162(1)(a) of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulations 2020. It was determined by Motion 11 at the Annual General Meeting of The Edge On Margate Beach CTS33790 on 20th May, 2021 that the Spending Limit be set at $15,000 including GST. The resubmission of Motion 2 dated 7th October, 2025 now lists the amount as $13,587 + GST (or $14,945.70) which is $14.30 below the Spending Limit, but does not provide a detailed scope of works. Iy also now describes the work as an "investigation", despite Lot 8 undergoing a fully documented deconstruction in Jine 2023 (see file). This appears to be a cynical attempt to push through contracting with this supplier to avoid Owner scrutiny and input and should be restrained from being acted on.
2. In Motion 2, the original proposal stated that existing windows are going to be refitted. Previous advice from a Structural Engineer was that taking this approach may negate the buildings insurance policy, as there are no legible markings to demonstrate that the existing windows meet the National Construction Code Part 3.6 Glazing in accordance with AS1288 (glazing must be legibly marked), and AS2047. The revised Motion 2 does not provide any detail of the proposed works, which means Owners do not have full information of what the Committee is voting on, and if this is actually a repair. The refitting of any windows should be prevented until it can be proven they will conform to these requirements.
3. The proposed works have not been funded in the budget, and no explanation has been provided how this work will be funded. The Committee should commit to being transparent on how this project will be funded, as per https://www.qld.gov.au/law/housing-and-neighbours/bodycorporate/ finance-insurance/spending-limits/body-corporate. The Committee should be restrained from proceeding until funding proposals are disclosed.
4. It is believed that the contractor nominated in Motion 2, John Speare Builders, has an existing and long-term association with one of the Committee members (being the original builder and original developer, respectively, in 2005). The BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997 - SECT 101B Code of conduct for committee voting members would require such an association to be declared. Any Committee member with an association with the nominated contractor should declare such an interest before voting on the Motion. Additionally, multiple residents have expressed in writing that they do not approve of John Speare Builders being engaged for any work on this site (see attached emails from owners Lot 4, Lot 14 and Lot 15)
5. Unapproved works have already been carried out on Lots 18 and 20 - both owned by nonresident Committee members - through the removal of roof panels over the balconies, which has altered the appearance of the building. There has been no notice to owners of this work, no meeting minutes showing approval by the Committee, including if any costs to be charged against Scheme funds, and no proposal nominating what materials will be used to replace the removed panels. As only 2 of the 4 top floor Lots have had the panels removed, there is already a significant alteration to the appearance of the building. The owners should be restrained from proceeding until the due processes are complied with.

• [11] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to decide this matter.[4]
• [12] 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.[5] Notably, an adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied on reasonable grounds it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[6]

• [13] This application was lodged on 29 September 2025, initially challenging the 24 September motion. The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification on some aspects of the application,[7] which was then amended.[8] As the 24 September motion was withdrawn, the application was then amended again to reflect the dispute about the 7 October motion.
• [14] As permitted under the Act, the Commissioner referred this application to me to decide whether the nature or urgency of the circumstances warrant an interim order,[9] notwithstanding that notice of the application has not yet been given to the respondent or owners.
• [15] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from a respondent or affected persons before an interim order is decided. However, given the circumstances, I provided the committee with a limited opportunity to respond to the application. A submission was made.
• [16] After reviewing that submission, I sought further information from the body corporate.

• [17] A submission made on behalf of the committee included some background detail and:
  1. The 24 September motion proposed engaging the builder to disassemble Lot 8, repair it, and test for water integrity.
  2. That motion was withdrawn as requested by the applicant when it was pointed out it was not within the committee spending limit. The builder submitted a new quote. The new motion is within the spending limit and the committee can vote on it.
  3. The selected unit is easily accessible by minimal scaffolding and is currently the worst and most affected unit in the complex.
  4. The limited works are clear to the committee members who were voted in to make this determination in the interest of addressing water ingress to the building, taking into consideration all matters include timeliness, cost, and insurance. The mandate for the new committee was to investigate alternative options.
  5. The builder has the appropriate licence to carry out any works in consultation with any expert they consider necessary and compliant, including glaziers and engineers.
  6. The original windows were constructed in Brisbane. As the original builder, John Speare retained the original glazing certificate of approval per Australian Standards. He has engaged a glazier to assist with the works.
  7. The work is to inform the broader scope of works and is limited in design and extent. The test repair is to the window surrounds, flashing, blockwork, and control movement joints, as an alternative to inform a broader scope of works. The work does not address all the issued caused by water ingress in Lot 8. The refitting of the window may or may not be appropriate and this will be determined from the investigative works and testing.
  8. The applicant was involved in an email discussion with the structural engineer and the builder about conducting these investigative works to inform an overall scope of works. The structural engineer endorsed the trial works.
  9. Complaints of water ingress were made to previous committees for over 10 years with little maintenance work actually being performed.
  10. While the applicant or some other owners do not want John Speare, he has invaluable existing knowledge of the construction.
  11. This contractor is for the test repair. The contractor for the entire project is yet to be determined.
  12. The committee understands from the body corporate manager that there are sufficient funds for the proposed test works and that they are within its spending limit.
  13. The funding for the entire project is still to be determined. It will be based on the developed scope of works and tenders received. Options will then be put to owners.
  14. The cost of the test repair is small compared to the overall expected cost.
  15. The committee member in question was a director of the development company. Following complaints of a perceived or potential conflict of interest, on 8 October the committee member provided a declaration of no financial interest, directly or indirectly, with the contractor. The committee has accepted the member has no direct or indirect financial interest and that the extent of previous association is not relevant.
  16. The matter in order 5 is unrelated to the 7 October motion. Polycarbonate roofing panels on the penthouse units have deteriorated to the extent that they pose a major risk of property damage and personal injury. The insurer is aware of the issue. Past committee's have acknowledged the body corporate is responsible for replacing the panels. After waiting over 2 years for body corporate repairs to water ingress that left the unit untenantable, the owner of Lot 18 undertook repairs to the lot at their own expense. Badly deteriorated panels were removed to provide access for the repair. The owner of Lot 20 removed theirs to avoid harm. The committee is investigating that approach for Lots 17 and 19. Quotes are being sought for replacement.
  17. The increase in insurance premiums 2 years ago was due to water ingress which the committee is attempting to address. Any insurance issue with window replacements is speculative. Any potential or perceived insurance risk is secondary to the lack of maintenance that the new committee is urgently attempting to address.

• [18] The only issue at this time is whether an interim order is warranted. However, it is necessary to consider the substantive issues in dispute to decide whether to make an interim order.

• [19] Any order granted must be just and equitable.[10] An interim order will not be granted unless it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[11] An adjudicator must be satisfied an application raises serious legal questions and that the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. 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.

• [20] I will note at the outset that have found the amended application difficult to follow. Some of the comments in the application still clearly relate to issues with the 24 September motion and it is unclear which motion some other comments relate to. Accordingly, the basis for the applicant's objections to the 7 October motion are not entirely clear.
• [21] I will comment on the key issues raised by the applicant, as best as I can identify them.

• [22] The applicant says the committee is exceeding its spending limit. They claim the body corporate is breaking down the total building remediation work on a lot-by-lot basis.
• [23] Sections 162-164 of the Accommodation Module provide for the control of body corporate spending. A committee cannot incur incurring expenditure above its committee spending limit except in certain circumstances.[12] The regulations state that if a series of proposals forms a single project, the cost of carrying out any one of the proposals is taken to be more than the committee spending limit if the cost of the proposal as a whole would be.[13]
• [24] It appears the relevant limit for committee spending at this scheme has been set at $15,000.[14] Although the 24 September motion involved spending that (with GST included) would have exceeded the committee's limit, the 7 October motion proposed spending within that limit.
• [25] If the same or similar work that is a body corporate responsibility is required on multiple lots, my preliminary view is the body corporate would need to approve the entire project at the same time or approve any components of the entire project having regard to the cost of the entire project. However, it is not immediately clear from the 7 October motion that the body corporate is seeking to progress the entire remediation project on a piecemeal basis as claimed. Rather, it seems the intention is that, by undertaking remediation work on one lot, the contractor will be able to ascertain the scope of works required for the entire building. I note the memorandum to owners in June flagged (at step 2, following an audit of windows at step 1) engaging a contractor to quote and oversee a full test repair in one unit to confirm the works address the water ingress issues. The approach then was (at step 3) obtaining quotes to undertake works on other lots, and (at step 4) calling an EGM to vote on the most suitable tender.
• [26] Regardless of any competing views on the merit of that approach, the applicant has not yet established it is not one the body corporate could reasonably take. To the extent that the proposed work is investigative, it would seem the nature and scope of the entire project is not yet known. I am not immediately convinced the spending limit restrictions on single projects would apply to preliminary investigations to ascertain the nature and scope of an entire project.
• [27] The applicant also says that two quotes are required. The legislation usually requires two quotes to be considered when expenditure over the major spending limit is considered. If the major spending limit exceeds the committee spending limit, two quotes for the spending should be included in the notice of the general meeting that considers the proposal, unless it is not practicable to obtain two quotes in which case a single quote must be provided.[15] If the committee spending limit is more than the major spending limit, the committee must consider at least two quotes.[16] Similarly, if for exceptional reasons it is not practicable to obtain two quotes, a single quote must be obtained and circulated.
• [28] The applicant does not say what the major spending limit for this scheme is. The default major spending limit is $10,000.[17] I asked the body corporate if the major spending limit had been changed but it only responded with a reference to the changed committee spending limit. The submitted material suggests the committee spending limit exceeds the major spending limit.
• [29] If the spending exceeds the major spending limit, two quotes would ordinarily have been required. It appears only one quote was obtained and considered by the committee. At this stage, I have insufficient information to ascertain if the current circumstances would constitute exceptional reasons for only obtaining one quote. It may be that more other contractors could do the work itself, but the explanatory note suggests others would not prepare the scope of works. Further investigation on that point may be required. But at the applicant does not clearly address this issue at this stage or substantiate their claims.
• [30] The applicant implies that a quote for the 7 October motion was not provided. That quote was not included in the application. However, when I queried the body corporate on this point, it provided a copy of a revised quote from John Speare Builders. That is an undated document referring to budget costings for the Unit 8, bedroom 2, bay window and lists the 'possible extent of work' at a cost of $13,587 excluding GST. The body corporate provides a copy of the 7 October notice which included the quote. But even if the quote had not been circulated with the notice of motion as it should have been, that might not necessarily be a sufficient procedural defect on its own to warrant invalidating the resolution.
• [31] The applicant suggests owners will be disadvantaged by not having oversight of the total project timelines, cost, the work, or the contractor. However, to the extent that the proposed work is within the committee spending limit, the body corporate has chosen to give the committee the power to have primary oversight of those matters. Moreover, if (as it appears) the intention is to test the repair methodology on one lot and then obtain tenders for the substantive repairs to the rest of the building for owners to vote on, then it would seem owners will have oversight of the substantive project once the entire scope of works is ascertained.
• [32] The applicant also says the spending has not been budgeted for and there is no information on how it will be funded. However, a motion to approve expenditure does not necessarily have to identify its funding source. And it will not necessarily be invalid simply because the expenditure has not been included in the approved budget. If a committee approves expenditure, and the body corporate has insufficient provision in its budget to meet that expenditure, then the committee could put a motion to a general meeting to raise a special levy to meet the liability.[18] Although it might be preferable, the funds do not necessarily need to have been raised before expenditure is approved.
• [33] It appears the applicant may be primarily concerned about the funding of the broader project to remedy the entire building, which will be significant. However, at this stage the committee has only purported to approve around $15,000. Where it appears the body corporate intends to put quotes for the broader project to a general meeting (and does not appear that it could proceed in any other way), the funding of the broader project can be determined by the body corporate if it decides to accept a quote for those works.

• [34] The applicant says the body corporate has not provided any breakdown of the work to be done and there is no detailed scope of works.
• [35] It would arguably be unreasonable for the committee to purport to approve work and expenditure of this nature and scale without a scope of works or a quote. However, unless the expenditure is above the major spending limit, there is no statutory requirement for a quote to be obtained and provided to all owners. Here, it appears a revised quote was circulated. And even if it was not, it seems evident there was an actual quote or scope of works before the committee and that the committee understood the work that it was voting on.
• [36] There could be a question that the quote only describes the possible extent of work and only lists broad line items. However, it is not necessarily the case that the body corporate cannot approve work without knowing the exact extent of the work or its costs. In some cases, proposed expenditure can be difficult to accurately estimate. That may be the case for exploratory and investigative works, which may be affected by what can only be discovered once work commences and what solutions work in practice to resolve the identified issues. The applicant has not addressed what further detail should have been provided.
• [37] The applicant says the proposal is to refit existing windows. They say previous advice from a structural engineer was that this approach would negate the building's insurance as there are no legible markings to demonstrate the existing windows meet the National Construction Code and relevant Australian Standards. They say the refitting of windows should prevented until it can be proven that they will conform to those requirements.
• [38] However, the application on this point is scant. Although refitting the window is included in the builder's 'possible extent of work', the committee says whether they do will depend on the investigations. The applicant has not established that the original windows did not meet the relevant standards (noting documentation provided by the committee). Moreover, the applicant has not provided evidence from a structural engineer or the scheme's insurer as to the consequences of refitting the existing windows. Accordingly, the applicant has not yet substantiated a genuine issue in that regard which would warrant intervention.
• [39] The applicant refers to the proposed contractor being the original builder of the scheme in 2005. The applicant claims the proposed works are required to address faults in the way windows were designed and installed. The applicant indicates that some owners have concern about this contractor undertaking any work at the scheme. But the applicant has not provided evidence that the proposed contractor is not appropriately licenced or otherwise qualified to undertake the work or was responsible any building defects at the scheme. If the applicant is arguing it would not be reasonable for the body corporate to engage this contractor for the work proposed by the 7 October motion (and I am unclear if that is the assertion), that is not explained or substantiated.

• [40] The applicant asserts the proposed contractor has a long-standing relationship with a committee member. They query whether the conflict has been declared or whether that committee member intends to vote on the disputed motion.
• [41] A committee member must disclose a direct or indirect interest in an issue to be considered by the committee at a committee meeting (including a vote outside a committee meeting), if that interest would conflict with the appropriate performance of their duties about the committee's consideration of the issue.[19] If a committee member must disclose a conflict of interest, they cannot vote on the motion. The obligation to disclose a conflict of interest is also reflected in the code of conduct for committee voting members.[20]
• [42] An interest that could conflict with a committee member's duties does not only include a financial interest. But the existence of a current or past association does not of itself mean a person has a conflict of interest. A previous working relationship with a contractor would not necessarily amount to an interest that would conflict with a committee member's proper consideration of a motion to engage that contractor.
• [43] The applicant did not say which committee member they were referring to. They said the committee member was the original developer of the scheme, and that the proposed contractor is the original builder of the scheme. The committee says the committee member in question was a director of the developer company and identifies them. That committee member has asserted that they do not have a direct or indirect interest in the proposed contractor. It is evident the committee member in question voted in favour of the 7 October motion.
• [44] The application does not explain why the apparent past association between the committee member's company and the proposed contractor would mean the committee member has an interest in the 7 October motion that must be declared. And even if the committee member had a conflict of interest but voted on the motion, the applicant has not established that the exclusion of any conflicted vote would change the outcome of voting on the disputed motion.

• [45] Although the substance of the final orders is a matter for subsequent determination, if the application proceeds, I will make some preliminary remarks on the particular orders sought.
• [46] I note generally that the statement of an order sought would normally concisely state the action that the applicant wants the respondent to take or cease taking to resolve the legal issue in dispute. In this case, the final orders sought are somewhat unclear.
• [47] Final order 1 essentially appears to just seek that the 7 October motion not be acted on. Although there are some matters that may require further investigation, have regard to the matters outlined above, at this stage the applicant has not established substantive questions about the validity of the motion.
• [48] Final order 2 seeks to prevent the refitting of windows until they can be proven to conform to identified requirements. But, at this stage, the applicant has not substantiated an issue with refitting windows, if in fact it was decided to do so.
• [49] Final order 3 appears to seek that the 7 October motion not proceed until the committee discloses how the project will be funded. However, the applicant has not yet established that the committee cannot validly approve the proposed spending without providing details of how it will be funded.
• [50] Final order 4 wants any conflict of interest to be declared. Genuine conflicts of interest should of course be declared. But the applicant has not yet substantiated the existence of any conflicts of interest that must be declared.
• [51] Final order 5 refers to other work having been carried out on two lots, allegedly without notice or approval. This order appears to be unrelated to the 7 October motion. The applicant appears to seek that those owners be restrained from proceeding with their works until due process is complied with. The applicant indicates a concern about the appearance of the building from the works. There is scant detail in the application about the issue with those two lots, and no indication that the applicant has engaged in self-resolution on that matter such that there is any evidence of a current dispute about it that I could determine.
• [52] Moreover, to the extent that the applicant appears to be seeking orders against the owners of the two lots, the applicant has not named those owners as respondents to this application. An order could not be made against the respondent body corporate in the terms of order 5. If the applicant has a genuine dispute with those owners that they are unable to resolve directly, that could be the subject of separate applications brought against those owners.

• [53] The applicant says if the committee proceeds to enter a contract with the builder as per the 7 October motion, it may leave owners liable to compensate the contractor if the motion is deemed 'illegal'. They say owners will be deprived of their ability to assess the merits of the proposal or oversight of the project. They say the body corporate may be disadvantaged financially and it may be a misuse of body corporate funds. They argue the potential that the insurer will refuse claims relating to the windows.
• [54] The committee did not specifically respond to the interim order sought. However, in response to my query the body corporate said the committee had engaged John Speare Builders in reliance on the resolution. It referred to engagement confirmation but did not actually provide a copy of that.
• [55] At this stage the applicant has not convinced me that the 7 October motion proposes work that is a component of a larger project such that it exceeds the committee spending limit. On the submitted evidence, the proposal appears to be preliminary investigations to identify the nature and scope of the broader project that will be put to owners once it is clarified and tenders sought. I currently have no evidence that incurring this expenditure will commit the body corporate to further expenditure or have any substantive adverse financial impact on the body corporate. I have no evidence that the proposed contractor is not one that the body corporate can engage or that there is an insurance risk from the proposed work.
• [56] Accordingly, at this stage the applicant has not substantiated that the nature of the issues raised, or the potential consequences from the body corporate implementing the 7 October motion, would warrant the intervention of an adjudicator.

• [57] The applicant bears the onus of establishing there are genuine legal issues to be determined and that the nature or urgency of the circumstances would warrant interim relief.
• [58] Aside from the question of whether two quotes were required for the work proposed by the 7 October motion, the applicant has not yet satisfied me that there are genuine questions to consider about the validity of the motion or the committee's capacity to resolve it. And the limited grounds do not yet establish the likelihood of orders being made in the applicant's favour even on the question of whether two quotes were required. Furthermore, the applicant has not substantiated that the current circumstances warrant an interim order being made. I have dismissed the application for interim orders.
• [59] The application for final orders remains. I will refer the application back to the Commissioner to progress under the dispute resolution provisions.[21] The applicant may wish to review the application having regard to the matters outlined above.
• [60] If the application proceeds, I propose recommending to the Commissioner this application be referred to conciliation to see if the parties could reach an agreement on any of the issues in dispute. If the dispute is not otherwise resolved between the parties, the Commissioner is likely to invite submissions in respect of the final orders from the committee and all owners.

[2] The Edge On Margate Beach [2025] QBCCMCmr 138, 30 April 2025

[3] The body corporate has provided minutes dated 13 October, albeit referring to a notice issued on 29 September, recording that Motion 2 was carried with 4 votes in favour and nil abstentions or against.

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

[12] Section 162 of the Accommodation Module

[13] Section 162(2) of the Accommodation Module

[14] Motion 11 at an annual general meeting on 20 May 2021

[15] Section 163 of the Accommodation Module

[16] Section 164 of the Accommodation Module

[17] Noting the definition of 'relevant limit for major spending' in schedule 1 of the Accommodation Module

[18] Section 152(2) of the Accommodation Module

[19] Section 58 of the Accommodation Module