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

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

BY-LAWS - whether by-law required lot owners to obtain prior written approval from the body corporate for works to the lot; PROPERTY DAMAGE - whether lot owners' work caused damage to property; UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE - whether lot owners interfered with or caused damage to utility infrastructure.

Act, ss 20, 166, 281; Accommodation Module, s 170

1. I declare that the respondents contravened By-law 15.1 when they failed to get prior written approval from the body corporate for works, commenced in or around September 2024, to alter their lot.
2. Within 30 days the respondents must, if they have not already done so, provide the body corporate with an application for written approval from the body corporate for all non-flooring works performed in Lot 42 since September 2024, which application is to include:

(a) a description of the scope of the works,

(b) relevant plans for the works, and

(c) the details of the contractors who completed the works.

1. Within 30 days the respondents must, if they have not already done so, provide the body corporate with the relevant certificates for works to fire safety infrastructure within their lot.
2. Within 60 days, the respondents must repair the damage to the slab between Lots 42 and 46. The repairs to the slab must include a report or certification, obtained at the respondents' expense, from independent and appropriately qualified persons confirming that any damage to the structural integrity of the slab has been rectified and that the slab has been repaired in a way that does not compromise the scheme's compliance with fire safety regulations.

• [1] This application is about works undertaken by the respondents to their lot.
• [2] The applicant body corporate says the works involved installation of a new kitchen, removal of an internal wall, alterations to plumbing, and replacement and re-location of common property air conditioning and smoke detection infrastructure. It says the respondents did not comply with the scheme's by-laws, which required the respondents to obtain written approval before proceeding with the works. Moreover, it says the works caused damage to other lots and may have compromised the fire safety compliance and structural integrity of the building.
• [3] The respondents say the works were maintenance and not improvements to the lot. As such, they deny the by-laws required them to seek pre-approval for the works. Although the respondents acknowledge some damage was inadvertently caused to another lot, they say that they have addressed that issue. They say the air conditioning and smoke detection infrastructure at issue is not common property and they deny compromising the fire safety or structural integrity of the building.
• [4] For the reasons given below, I have made some but not all of the orders sought.

• [5] The scheme known as The Manor Apartments CTS 18217 (The Manor Apartments) is located in Brisbane. The Manor is registered as a building format plan of subdivision on BUP 100334. The community management statement (CMS) for The Manor Apartments shows the Accommodation Module applies.
• [6] The applicant is the Body Corporate for The Manor Apartments.
• [7] The respondents are the three co-owners of Lot 42.
• [8] Th owners of Lots 38 and 46 are directly affected persons.

• [9] The applicant initially applied for interim orders to restrain the respondents from performing further works to their lot until the body corporate could inspect the lot. In The Manor Apartments [2024] QBCCMCmr 413 (Interim Order), to give the body corporate time to conduct an inspection and decide how to proceed, I made interim orders that the respondents must not proceed with the works for at least 30 days. By its terms, the Interim Order expired after 60 days unless the body corporate sought an extension. The body corporate did not make a request that the Interim Order be extended
• [10] The applicant made this application for final orders to resolve the dispute. This application then proceeded according to the legislation, with the Commissioner inviting the respondents and all owners to make a submission on the application.[1] The respondents and the owner of one other lot made submissions. The applicant did not elect to inspect the submissions. A dispute resolution recommendation was made to refer the application to department adjudication.[2]
• [11] Adjudicators have jurisdiction and power to make a range of orders to resolve disputes about the exercise of rights or powers, performance of duties under, or a claimed contravention of, the Act or the CMS.[3] This dispute is about whether the respondent contravened the Act or the CMS. I am satisfied it falls within the dispute resolution provisions of the Act and that I have jurisdiction and powers to make orders to resolve the dispute. I investigated the dispute, including by reviewing the application, the submissions, and the CMS.[4]

• [12] The body corporate gives a history of the dispute. It says and provided documents that show as follows:
  1. In September 2024, the building manager advised the committee that unauthorised improvements to Lot 42 had caused damage to Lot 38 below. Specifically, the manager explained that the respondents had cut the water pipes to remove the air conditioner in Lot 42, which caused water to leak through exposed holes in the floor slab into Lot 38. The manager arranged for the pipes in Lot 42 to be welded to prevent further damage and the respondents were asked to cease further works until the next committee meeting.
  2. At the committee meeting held on 12 September 2024, the committee resolved that respondents were responsible for the costs of all damage to Lot 38 and were required to submit a complete application for approval for all past and future works planned within Lot 42.
  3. On 24 September 2024, it received incomplete applications for approval.
  4. In October 2024, the owner of Lot 38 advised that the works to Lot 42 were continuing, including on a Sunday. The respondents were requested to stop all further works until the committee had reviewed their application and given written approval for the works. Shortly thereafter, the respondents caused damage to the lot above (Lot 46) by drilling through the concrete ceiling to install brackets for a re-located air conditioning unit.
  5. When the respondents continued with the works, the committee decided to issue them with a Form 10 notice asserting the respondents were breaching By-law 15.[5]
  6. Discussions about the works were held with the respondents in late October 2024.
• [13] The body corporate is seeking 4 final orders, which can be summarised as:

1. Order 1: that the respondents have contravened By-law 15 of the scheme's CMS; 2. Order 2: requiring the respondents to comply with By-law 15 by:

(i) submitting a complete application, which is to include a scope of works, all relevant plans, and contractor details, for all of the works to the lot, and > > (ii) obtaining the body corporate's written approval for all of the works;

1. Order 3: requiring the respondents to "make good" all damage caused to other lots and common property infrastructure; and

1. Order 4: requiring the respondents to cover expenses incurred by the body corporate for an inspection of the lot to ensure fire safety compliance and structural integrity.

• [14] The body corporate's grounds in support of each these orders will be discussed in more detail in the analysis section below.

• [15] The owner of Lot 38, which is located below Lot 42, made a submission in support of the application. She says in September 2024 she found water pouring through a light fitting above her kitchen bench and an area of approx. 6-7 sqm flooded. The building manager attended the lot above, which had recently been sold and was not occupied, and shut the water off.
• [16] The owner of Lot 38 says around the time of the water ingress, one of the respondents agreed to pay all costs rather than use insurance. The manager organised repairs to the kitchen bulkhead and the respondents reimbursed her for those repairs.
• [17] The owner of Lot 38 says, thereafter, the respondents continued to extensively and loudly renovate Lot 42 with works carried out 7 days a week, including Sundays. She says there is no indication he is using licensed tradespersons for the works.
• [18] In addition to the damage to the kitchen bulkhead, the owner of Lot 38 says the water ingress from Lot 42 also caused damage to the flooring, 3 hand crafted dining chairs, and kitchen cabinetry. She wants the respondents to pay for that damage.
• [19] The respondents made a submission opposing the application. They say generally that:
  1. they purchased and took possession of the lot in July 2024 with the intention of residing in it themselves
  2. they moved out of the prior rental accommodation in November 2024 and, because of delays which they attribute to the Interim Order, they did not anticipate being able to complete the works or move into the lot until after March 2025 which meant they were without housing for some time
  3. the historical maintenance works to the building appear to have been minimal and ad hoc, for example pointing to documented prior issues with water leaks and with the fire safety system, and
  4. at the time of purchase, it did not appear that the lot had been maintained since around 1994 with the kitchen aged and in poor repair, damaged ceiling plaster from historical water leaks from the roof and air conditioner, and bathrooms worn with evidence of prior leaking into walls and floors, and they wished to undertake the maintenance works to their lot before moving in.
• [20] With regard to the works to their lot, the respondents say more specifically that:
  1. they indicated to the body corporate manager the types of works they were intending to do to the lot and obtained a copy of the by-laws
  2. pursuant to the by-laws, they sought body corporate approval for new wooden floors
  3. in their view, the by-laws do not require body corporate approval for the remainder of the proposed works, which are maintenance works that the respondents are obligated to undertake because the items are at the end of their useful life, and the works were not structural, and did not require local government approval,
  4. the body corporate has adopted an adversarial approach which has caused delays and is frustrating rather than resolving issues, including by deciding to issue a Form 10 notice without a reasonable basis for its belief there was a by-law breach, asserting structural issues where one of the respondents is a registered engineer, and a lack of good faith in trying to resolve the dispute
  5. the water leak and damage to Lot 38 below was unintended and could not have been anticipated because the leak was due to a failure of the common property infrastructure isolation valves (which failed to maintain a seal) causing a leak into Lot 42 which then progressed to Lot 38 via two unknown holes in the flooring slab, moreover, the repairs have been agreed to and paid, and
  6. the damage to Lot 46 above was also unintended and occurred when a contractor inadvertently penetrated the ceiling slab while securing the replacement air conditioning unit, with damage repaired and paid for by the respondents.

• [21] The body corporate says the respondents applied to the committee pursuant to By-law 15 in August 2024 for approval to replace flooring within the lot with hardwood floors. The committee resolved to approve the flooring works subject to conditions. In September 2024, however, the body corporate discovered the respondents were carrying out additional works to the lot that had not been approved.
• [22] The body corporate says the unapproved works included removal of an internal wall separating the kitchen and hallway of Lot 42 as well as removal of a body corporate asset (ducted air conditioning unit) that was connected to a central cooling tower. The building manager reported substantial water damage to Lot 38 relating to the unapproved works that were being undertaken by the respondents in Lot 42. The respondents were instructed to cease work until they had submitted a formal application with relevant supporting documentation.
• [23] On 24 September 2024, the respondents applied for body corporate approval, complete with plans and quotes, to remove and replace the kitchen in the lot, and to remove and replace the air conditioning unit and associated ducting and ceiling plaster.
• [24] Even though it had not considered or approved the respondents' 24 September application, the body corporate says that:
  1. On 11 October 2024 it learnt that the respondents had proceeded with the works and in doing so, a contractor had pierced the ceiling slab that formed the floor of Lot 46 causing a bulge in the carpet. Lot 46, which was let as hotel accommodation, was occupied at the time by a guest who had to be relocated to an alternative room.
  2. On 14 October 2024, it learnt that the respondents were also re-locating smoke detectors in the lot. As part of those works, the respondents' contractor was, without authorisation, tampering with the body corporate fire indicator panel located on common property.
• [25] On 16 October 2024, the body corporate served the respondents with a Form 10 notice of a by-law breach requiring them to cease contravening the by-laws within 7 days. On 12 November 2024, the Interim Order was made requiring the respondents to cease works for 30 days to enable the body corporate to issue a notice of entry and inspect the lot.
• [26] The body corporate seeks 4 orders relating to the above. I will consider and make determinations separately for each order sought.

• [27] The body corporate says the respondents breached By-law 15 because they did not obtain written body corporate approval before commencing the above works. The body corporate seeks a final order formally noting the contravention and requiring respondents and other owners comply with the by-laws and body corporate requirements for any future works. The body corporate seeks a second order requiring the respondents to submit a complete application for written approval for all the works to the lot, which application is to include the scope of works, relevant plans, and details of the contractors completing the works.
• [28] The respondents oppose the orders sought and contend that By-law 15 is inapplicable because it only requires approval for improvements to a lot, not maintenance works. They assert that the works are like-for-like replacements which are required maintenance and not improvement works. Accordingly, they say the works to their lot did not require approval from the body corporate pursuant to By-law 15 and there has been no contravention.
• [29] The respondents also say there is nothing to support the body corporate's assertions that they have interfered with common property infrastructure where:
  1. the false ceiling means the air conditioning ducts and related infrastructure, infrastructure at issue is wholly within the boundaries of the lot and is therefore the responsibility of the lot owner,
  2. they engaged appropriately qualified fire system contractors to remove and reinstall the fire detection and alarm infrastructure that is within the boundaries of their lot, is not within any boundary structure, and services only Lot 42,
  3. their activities relating to fire safety within their lot were documented in the scheme's logbooks and a Form 12 certification obtained when those works were complete, and
  4. they did not make any changes to fire detection and alarm systems on common property.

• [30] The by-laws are part of the scheme's community management statement (CMS). The CMS, including the by-laws, is binding on the body corporate, each member of the body corporate and each person who is otherwise the occupier of a lot in the scheme. Section 94 of the Act requires the body corporate to enforce the CMS, including the by-laws and to act reasonably in doing so.
• [31] By-law 15 of the scheme's CMS provides:
  1. Alterations to Lots

15.1 Except as set out in this by-law, Lots must not be altered without:

(a) the prior written approval of the Body Corporate;

(b) first submitting to the Body Corporate plans and specifications and any other details required by the Body Corporate in respect of any proposed alterations; and

(c) all necessary local authority and other approvals having first been obtained.

(a) must not unreasonably withhold its consent to an alteration; and

(b) may give its consent subject to reasonable conditions.

15.3 No hard floor finishes may be installed without the prior written approval of the Body Corporate which may be given subject to conditions. The Body Corporate may withhold consent to any such approval unless the Proprietor or Occupier of a Lot demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the Body Corporate that the floor finishes installed:

(a) minimises the transfer of noise from floor to floor within the Scheme;

(b) meets acoustic ratings reasonably determined by the Body Corporate, which may vary depending on areas and rooms located beneath a Lot; and

(c) will be carried out by a professional tradesperson approved by the Body Corporate.

15.4 No approval of the Body Corporate is necessary for minor alterations to the Lot such as replacing a small area of flooring, provided the replacement is the same or relatively similar to the existing material type. In giving its consent pursuant to by-law 15.3, the Body Corporate may require a certification from a suitably qualified contractor that the flooring installed satisfies the acoustic ratings nominated by the Body Corporate.

• [32] To comply with By-law 15.1, a lot owner wishing to alter their lot requires the prior written approval of the body corporate. However, By-law 15.4 provides such approval is not necessary for minor alterations.
• [33] The question to be determined is whether the works undertaken by the respondents fall within the definition of alterations requiring prior approval (By-law 15.1), minor alterations not requiring approval (By-law 15.4), or maintenance works not captured by By-law 15 at all.
• [34] As an initial matter, I reject the respondents' argument that the meaning of "alterations" in By-law 15 is to be interpreted the same way as the word "improvements" is defined and applied for the purposes of the Act.[6] In my opinion, a scheme's by-laws are to be interpreted by reference to the words used in the by-laws and the purpose and context of those by-laws.
• [35] In this case, the word used in the by-laws is alterations, not improvements. Context is given to the meaning of the word "alterations" where By-law 15 makes a distinction between alterations (in 15.1) and minor alterations (in 15.4). Further context is found in By-law 15.4, which uses replacing a small area of flooring with a similar material as an example of a minor alteration not requiring approval. Based on the distinction between alterations and minor alterations, and from the example of the latter in By-law 15, in my view, the word "alterations" in By-law 15 is intended to include replacement works. Smaller replacements using similar materials are considered to be minor alterations and by implication, larger scale replacement works are non-minor alterations which I consider require prior written approval from the body corporate.
• [36] Where a portion of this scheme is operated as a hotel, I have also considered that a purpose of this by-law may be to require lot owners to seek prior approval for non-minor alterations because such works are likely to take longer to finalise and may affect the management of hotel guest bookings.
• [37] Turning to whether the respondents' works are alterations to their lot requiring body corporate approval or whether they are minor alterations that do not. The respondents undertook works to renovate what they estimate was the 30-year old kitchen for the lot. I accept that the configuration, kitchen reticulated water and wastewater system entry and location within the lot remains the same. However, I am satisfied on the evidence presented that the kitchen renovation was a complete replacement of all cabinets and included removal of a wall. For the purposes of By-law 15, I am satisfied the kitchen works were alterations that were not minor.
• [38] I am satisfied that the respondents also removed and replaced an old air conditioning unit. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities from the photos and invoices provided that the respondents also changed the configuration of the associated ducting in the lot. It is not clear whether the changes to the ducting necessitated the works to the false ceiling or whether the ceiling works were independent of the air conditioning works. It is also unclear whether the false ceiling was completely or only partially reinstated. Regardless, I am satisfied the respondents did undertake works to the false ceiling which in turn required removal and reinstallation of the smoke detectors. Even if the fire safety infrastructure was reinstalled in the same location, I am satisfied that the works as a whole were alterations for the purpose of By-law 15.1.
• [39] In my view, for the purposes of By-law 15, the works were undertaken concurrently and were more than minor alterations to the lot. As such, I am satisfied that the works required the respondents as owners of the lot to obtain prior written approval from the body corporate.
• [40] Even if I am wrong and the word "altered" in By-law 15.1 should not be interpreted to include maintenance by way of replacement, in my view, a significant portion of the works went beyond maintenance and constituted improvements. The air conditioning ducting was relocated and reconfigured, the false ceiling modified, and a wall removed.
• [41] For the above reasons, I am satisfied the respondents did require written prior approval from the body corporate for the works to Lot 42. By failing to obtain such approval, I am satisfied the respondents contravened By-law 15.1 and I have made a declaratory order to that effect. However, I do not consider there is any utility in making an order that the respondents (or others) are required to comply with the by-laws. Such an order is unnecessary and would serve no purpose where owners are already required by body corporate legislation to comply.
• [42] Regarding the second order sought, I am satisfied based on the submissions that the respondents have likely already provided the majority of the documentation sought by the body corporate regarding the works. However, where the body corporate wishes to ensure it has complete and accurate records, I consider it just and equitable to make an order that the respondents provide any documentation that has been requested by the body corporate but has not yet been provided

• [43] The body corporate points to the damage to Lot 38 and also says that the damage to the floor of Lot 46 meant that owner lost rental income when the guest had to be relocated. It notes that the letting manager incurred costs of $105 for complimentary parking for the affected guest. The body corporate seeks a third order requiring the respondents "to make good on all damage caused to other Lots and Common Property." It says section 281 of the Act provides the basis for such an order because the respondents' actions caused damage to Lots 38 and 46.
• [44] Section 281 of the Act provides that where an adjudicator is satisfied that the applicant has suffered damage to property because of a contravention of the Act or the CMS, the adjudicator may order the person responsible to carry out repairs or to pay to reimburse the applicant (subject to monetary limits) for works carried out to the property. There are two reasons why I cannot make the third order sought by the body corporate about damage to lots.
• [45] Firstly, the body corporate is the applicant here. Therefore, my power to make an order pursuant to section 281 of the Act for the owners of Lots 38 and 46 is not enlivened. If those owners seek to recover for property damage caused by the respondents' contravention of the Act or CMS, then the owners of those lots would need to make an application for conciliation or for final orders from an adjudicator.
• [46] Secondly, section 281 only gives adjudicators the power to make orders to repair, or reimburse for repairs made to, damaged property. It is generally accepted that section 281 of the Act does not give adjudicators the power to make orders for payment of consequential economic loss such as lost rental income.[7] Therefore, even if the owner of Lot 46 was the applicant, an adjudicator would not be able to make an order for lost rental income.
• [47] For these reasons, I decline to make the third order sought.

• [48] The body corporate says works undertaken by the respondents in their lot included relocating common property infrastructure, namely, the ducted air conditioning unit and smoke detectors. It suggests that those infrastructure items are common property of the body corporate. By doing so, the body corporate says the respondents have contravened By-law 6, which prohibits a lot owner from damaging common property.[8] The body corporate also says that, when installing the new air conditioning unit within the lot, the respondents' contractor drilled through the slab that separates Lot 42 from Lot 46 above.
• [49] The body corporate is concerned that the respondents' works may have compromised the fire safety for the building and that the penetration through the slab may have affected its structural integrity. It wants to confirm that there is no long-term damage and that the works and repaired slab comply with relevant regulations. Accordingly, it seeks a fourth order requiring the respondents to "cover expenses incurred by the body corporate for inspection of the Lot to ensure fire safety compliance and structural integrity."

• [50] The body corporate suggests that the air conditioning unit and ducts and the smoke detectors within the respondents' lot are common property. It does not explain the basis for its belief.
• [51] The respondents say the infrastructure is not common property, is wholly within and services only their lot, and they are required to maintain it. For the air conditioning infrastructure, they say more specifically that:

The Manor does have air conditioning utility infrastructure. The air conditioning is a water­cooled system. The water-cooling tower infrastructure is located on the roof of The Manor building in the common area and is therefore common property. The body corporate does have a service agreement for the common property water tower infrastructure.

The tower supplies water for the heat exchange process to individual air conditioning unit within the individual units via a pipe system which is generally on the outside of the building, which we believe is common property. However, the water supply enters Lot 42 at a shutoff valve at the lot/common area boundary before continuing inside our lot to our air conditioning unit that serves our Lot.

We believe this utility infrastructure pipework and air conditioning unit and reticulation ducting inside our lot and that services only our Lot, is ours to maintain and therefore own. To the best of our knowledge the body corporate has never maintained or developed a maintenance schedule for the air conditioner units or reticulation ducting inside our Lot.

• [52] Regarding the fire safety infrastructure, the respondents say they engaged an appropriately qualified fire system contractor to undertake works to the fire utility infrastructure that services only Lot 42 and is within the boundaries of the lot. They say the works have been documented in the body corporate's logbooks and a Form 12 certification obtained as required.
• [53] I am satisfied that the respondents are responsible for maintaining the air conditioning infrastructure and the smoke detectors that are wholly within the boundaries of the respondents' lot.[9] I am also satisfied that the respondents have documentation for the works to the fire safety infrastructure from an appropriately qualified fire safety contractor. It is not clear to me whether that documentation has been provided to the body corporate. I consider it appropriate to make an order that, if they have not already done so, the respondents must provide the body corporate with the relevant certificates for those works. I do not consider any additional orders are warranted.

• [54] I am satisfied (and it is not disputed) that in replacing the air conditioning unit, the respondents penetrated the slab that separates Lot 42 from Lot 46 above. The respondents appear to accept that they are responsible for repairing the damage to the slab.
• [55] The body corporate is concerned that the penetration through the slab may have affected its structural integrity or compromised the fire safety for the building. It wants confirmation that there is no long-term damage and that the repaired slab complies with relevant regulations.
• [56] The slab is the boundary between the two lots and is not part of the common property. It is clearly part of the essential supporting framework for the building and provides support to the lot above. It also potentially plays a role in fire safety separation between lots. The body corporate is the party responsible for maintaining the slab in a structurally sound condition.[10]
• [57] Occupiers are not permitted to interfere with support for another lot, nor can they use their lot in a way that causes a nuisance or a hazard.[11] By causing a penetration through the slab, I am satisfied that the respondents interfered with the support for another lot in contravention of the Act. As a result, I am satisfied that the body corporate has suffered damage to property it is responsible for maintaining because of a contravention of the Act by the respondents.
• [58] In such circumstances, I may order that repairs be carried out by the person I consider on reasonable grounds to be responsible or that the person responsible reimburse the applicant for repairs.[12] I consider that in some cases, the nature of the damage may mean that certifications or reports about repairs are a necessary or appropriate aspect of complete and sufficient repairs.
• [59] In this application, the body corporate seeks an order that the respondents cover any structural or fire safety inspection costs incurred by the body corporate. Where the body corporate has not provided any evidence of inspections or expenditure to date, I consider it is effectively seeking an order in advance for reimbursement. Without knowing exactly what the body corporate is proposing or the costs, I am not persuaded it would be just and equitable to make an order that the respondents are responsible for unknown costs.
• [60] However, given the structural and possible fire safety function of the slab, it is my opinion that in this case, sufficient and complete repairs do require confirmation that any structural or fire safety compliance issues relating to the damage have been repaired. I consider it just and equitable and within my powers to order that the respondents are responsible for this aspect of the repairs. I have made such an order.

• [61] The body corporate also says that the respondents' contractor accessed the common property fire indicator panel located without authorisation. In response, the respondents say they have not made changes to any fire detection or alarm system on common property.
• [62] Occupiers of lots are not permitted to interfere with utility infrastructure in a way that may affect the supply of utility services to another lot or the common property.[13] Although I am satisfied that the respondents did access the fire safety panel without body corporate authorisation, the body corporate has not alleged nor provided any evidence that the unauthorised access caused damage to the panel. Nor has it explained how the respondents' access to the panel affected the supply of services (fire safety) to occupiers or the body corporate.
• [63] Where the body corporate has not provided any evidence of damage to the fire safety panel, and I am satisfied access to the fire panel was by an appropriately qualified person and the fire safety related works have been certified, I do not consider it would be just and equitable to make orders about the fire control panel.

• [64] I have made orders for the reasons given above.
• [65] Notwithstanding my findings about the fire safety panel, those findings should not be interpreted to suggest that I condone the respondents' actions in permitting their contractor to access the fire safety panel without authorisation or at least first notifying the body corporate. To be clear, I do not consider those actions were appropriate.

[5] The application included a copy of Form 10 by-law contravention notices that were sent to the respondents.

[7] See Runaway Lagoons-The Laguna Residences [2025] QBCCMCmr 5; Victoria Square [2024] QBCCMCmr 387; and 3 Delungra Street [2024] QBCCMCmr 16. I reached the same conclusion in Calypso Plaza On Coolangatta [2024] QBCCMCmr 353

[8] It also refers to section 162 of the Act. However, I do not consider that section to be relevant here.

[10] See Section 170(2)(b)(iii) of the Accommodation Module

[11] See Sections 165 and 167 of the Act

[12] See Section 281(1)(a) of the Act