MAINTENANCE - IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY - RESTRICTED DECISION - whether painting works to common property were authorised in the way required by the BUGT Act;

JURISDICTION - whether the building exteriors were painted in colours that contravened applicable by-laws.

Integrated Resort Development Act 1987 (Qld)(IRD Act), ss 179A, 179B

• [1] The Proprietors - The Palladian GTP 106768 (The Palladian) is a residential body corporate within the Hope Island Resort and consists of 103 lots and common property. Of the total lots, 35 lots are registered on a group titles plan with the remaining 68 lots registered on one of 9 different building unit plans (BUPs). This dispute is about the body corporate's decisions relating to painting of the common property exterior of 7 buildings on those BUPs.
• [2] The body corporate decided at a general meeting to authorise expenditure for painting works to 7 of the BUP buildings. The committee, after consultation with the proprietors (owners) of lots in the respective buildings, subsequently made the decisions about the colour schemes for each building. The committee then had its colour decisions approved by the architectural authority established by the principal body corporate for the Hope Island Resort (Hope Island Resort PBC).
• [3] The applicant claims the committee and the body corporate did not comply with the legislation when making decisions about painting expenditure and colour selection for the 7 buildings. Even though the applicant does not own a lot in any of the painted buildings at issue and does not contribute funds for the painting of those buildings, the gist of her application is that she did not have a say in the new colour schemes for those buildings. The applicant also claims the new colour schemes contravene the development control by-laws made by the Hope Island Resort PBC as well as The Palladian's own by-laws.
• [4] For the reasons given below, I have dismissed the application.

• [5] The applicant is the proprietor (owner) of Lot 11 in The Palladian. Lot 11 is found on GTP 106768.
• [6] The respondent is The Proprietors - The Palladian GTP 106768, referred to herein as the "body corporate."

• [7] The Palladian is part of the Hope Island Resort development. The development was created under and is regulated by the Integrated Resort Development Act 1987 (IRD Act).[1] Under the IRD Act, a principal body corporate (PBC) was constituted in respect of all land in the development. The PBC for the development is the Hope Island Resort PBC.
• [8] The resort includes a number of precincts with varying uses, namely, residential, retail and marina. Certain development control by-laws (DCBLs) apply to land in the residential precincts.[2] The DCBLs provide for the Hope Island Resort PBC to establish an architectural review authority (Architectural Authority) to, among other things, consider applications for development approval and advise the PBC if an application complies with the DCBLs.
• [9] As part of the tiered development and pursuant to the IRD Act, multiple residential bodies corporate were formed and registered under the BUGT Act. Each of the residential bodies corporate is a member of the Hope Island Resort PBC. The Palladian group titles plan 106768 (The Palladian) is one of those residential bodies corporate.
• [10] Over the years, The Palladian itself has been further developed, with many of its original lots amalgamated or re-subdivided. The result is that The Palladian currently comprises of 103 lots and common property. Of the 103 total lots, 35 lots are registered on a group titles plan (GTP).[3] The applicant owns one of those lots.
• [11] The other 68 lots are registered on one of 9 separate BUPs of resubdivision.[4] For lots in BUPs, there are typically multiple lots within a single building. Lots on a BUP are defined by structural features of the building that houses them[5] which means the external surfaces of the building are usually common property. The 9 BUPs in The Palladian have differing numbers of lots, with some having 2 lots, some with 8 lots, and others with 12 lots.
• [12] The applicant is disputing the external painting by the body corporate of 7 of the buildings (described by most owners as "condominiums") located on BUPs that form part of The Palladian.

• [13] Two pieces of legislation apply to give a referee jurisdiction to make determinations and issue orders relating to some disputes at The Palladian.
• [14] The introduction of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (BCCM Act) meant the BUGT Act no longer applied to many bodies corporate. However, there are some exceptions. Section 325(2)(a) of the BCCM Act provides that the BUGT Act continues to apply to plans registered under that Act for a "specified Act." The IRD Act is one such "specified" Act.[6] As a result, the BUGT Act continues to apply to The Palladian.
• [15] The BUGT Act provides that certain persons, including a proprietor, may make a written application for orders from a referee to settle a dispute or rectify a complaint, about the exercise of powers or performance of functions conferred or imposed by the BUGT Act. In terms of orders that may be made, a referee has a general power to make orders pursuant to section 77(1) and the power to make the more specific orders described in sections 75 to 94B of the BUGT Act.
• [16] The applicant is a proprietor, seeking an order against the body corporate about the exercise of powers or performance of functions under the BUGT Act in relation to the parcel. Prima facie, I am satisfied I have jurisdiction under section 77(1) of the BUGT Act to make determinations and orders for this dispute.
• [17] However, some aspects of the dispute relate to the development control by-laws (DCBLs). This potentially raises certain jurisdictional issues, which are discussed further below.

• [18] The respondent and all owners were invited to make a submission on the application for final orders. The respondent and multiple owners made submissions. The applicant provided a reply. The respondent subsequently provided an update and the applicant was given the opportunity to respond.

• [19] The applicant seeks 6 orders. As background to the dispute, she says the body corporate is generally responsible for the maintenance of the common property of the 9 BUPs. However, By-law 30 allocates exclusive use of certain common property to the proprietors of each BUP and requires the proprietors for each of the BUPs to contribute to a maintenance fund to cover the costs of maintaining the exclusive use common property in their BUP.[7] This maintenance responsibility includes painting the exterior of the BUP buildings.
• [20] The applicant says the Palladian's By-laws and the DCBLs apply to limit the colours that can be used for painting building exteriors at The Palladian. She says the exteriors of all buildings and other areas were last painted in 2011.
• [21] The applicant says the particular colours used in 2011 were chosen, and shutters were added to some windows and balconies, to reflect the Tuscan/Palladian architectural style of the buildings in the precinct. She says the three colours used in 2011 were the same ones used (with only minor variations) since inception of the body corporate in the late 1990s. The colour scheme for exterior walls was two colours, with gutters, shutters, and some garage doors, being painted in a third contrasting colour.
• [22] The applicant notes that maintenance painting of the buildings' exteriors and masonry fences is well overdue having been budgeted to occur in 2022 and then rescheduled due to there being insufficient funds accumulated for the re-painting of the 9 BUP properties.
• [23] In terms of paint colours, the applicant claims the committee is misleading owners with respect to the procedure for selecting paint colours. She says in January 2024, owners of two lots on BUP 107042 lodged an application with the Architectural Authority (for the Hope Island Resort PBC) to paint the exterior of their building in colours that were different from the existing. She says although the application was approved, in April 2024 the committee for The Palladian voted not to approve the owners' application. Also in April 2024, she says the committee decided to paint test colours on columns in the swimming pool area so owners could consider a scheme colour palette change.
• [24] The applicant also says the committee is misleading owners regarding disposal of common property shutters on the BUP buildings.
• [25] The applicant says generally that the committee and the body corporate have made a series of decisions about painting and have taken actions as follows:
  1. in June 2024, the committee approved the painting of the exterior of 2 BUPs (Lots 113-116) in colours markedly different from other colours in the residential precinct and different from the colours approved by the Architectural Authority, with the painting of those buildings already complete
  2. in July 2024, the body corporate approved by ordinary resolution at a general meeting (2024 EGM) a quote to paint the buildings on the remaining 7 BUPs at a cost of $324,720, with the explanatory notes stating the quotes were not for painting in the existing colour scheme as that would cost more and owners of the respective BUPs would be invited to give their views on colours for the walls, shutters, and garage doors
  3. on 23 July 2024, the committee advised BUP lot owners it would meet with them by block to discuss colour options and the approval process, for example, for BUP 107037, the committee provided a voting paper to owners which noted all guttering was to be "Ironstone" colour with the painting of that BUP 107037 now effectively complete
  4. the painting of BUPs 107042 and 107043 were completed in mid-August 2024, and
  5. the painting of BUP 107036 commenced in late August 2024 and is virtually complete
• [26] Regarding the shutters, the applicant says the painting quotes presented as Motions 5 and 6 did not include removal, painting, or re-installing the shutters. She says in early August when washing the building on BUP 107037 in preparation for painting, it became apparent the shutters would need to be removed to paint the wall behind them. The committee realised it would be difficult and expensive. One committee member suggested lot owners in the BUP could decide whether the shutters should be retained or disposed of as scrap. Owners were issued with a voting paper to indicate their preference. The voting paper included an estimated cost of removal, painting and reinstallation, but no quote.
• [27] The applicant says although some of the external shutters have been painted, they have not been re-instated. Other shutters have been stacked on common property and lot owners in that BUP have apparently voted to dispose of them.
• [28] The applicant also provides more specific grounds for each of the orders sought. Those grounds will be summarised and discussed in the Analysis section below.

• [29] The owners of several lots support the application. One of those owners shares the applicant's concerns about "the non-compliant exterior paint colours now being used to paint The Palladian common property and some Palladian GTP residences." The owner asserts that:
  1. there has been no attempt to replicate the existing muted earth tones which have defined The Palladian's architectural uniqueness
  2. the committee's focus has been to re-paint in off-white and grey tones, with gutters and facias in 'Colorbond Ironstone', which is described as a mid-based grey with a strong bluish undertone, but in reality it is such a very dark navy blue that in some instances it appears black
  3. the architectural details of The Palladian's Tuscan/Mediterranean architecture are being invalidated by the painting
  4. the committee for The Palladian and the Architectural Authority have knowingly approved the use of external paint colours for common property in contravention of The Palladian By-laws (By-law 27) and the Hope Island Resort Principal DCBLs (including DCBL 3) which means there is now a mixture of buildings painted in muted pastel and earthy tones and others in varying shades of off-white and grey, and
  5. the non-compliance with the By-laws significantly eliminates The Palladian's Tuscan/Mediterranean architecture which has implications for property value.
• [30] In support of the application, the owners of another lot say they first raised concerns with the committee in June 2024 about the process being followed regarding changes to the colour scheme. They say the colours do not comply with the DBCLs and represent such a significant departure from the existing colour scheme the repainting should be classified as an improvement (requiring approval at a general meeting) rather than maintenance.
• [31] The owners note further that:
  1. only owners of lots in BUPs were consulted about colour choices, even though all lot owners should have been consulted
  2. the committee improperly delegated colour choice decisions to the owners in each BUP
  3. the committee presented only its own proposed colour scheme options and did not enable owners in the BUP to present other options
  4. they tried to propose a motion for inclusion in the July 2024 EGM that the body corporate consider obtaining a legal opinion about the change in paint colours before it voted on motions to change the colour scheme but the owners' motion was not included in the EGM notice
  5. it is unclear why the committee finds it necessary to seek legal assistance to defend its decisions against this application for final orders given its earlier assertions it was complying with the legislation and by-laws, and
  6. the committee have not acted reasonably in responding to the submitter's concerns about the colour change process nor in its decisions about that process.
• [32] Several owners made submissions opposing the application.
• [33] The owner of one of the 35 GTP lots opposes the application on the grounds it is based on speculation, questionable conduct, lack of evidence and mistaken belief. In his view, the BUP buildings were rundown with dirty peeling paint, the painting maintenance works were stalled for more than 7 years, the painting approval process has been followed, and the majority of proprietors of lots in The Palladian are pleased with the newly painted buildings. He says the body corporate should not be hamstrung by the wishes of one owner and is now forced to waste funds on legal fees.
• [34] The owner of a lot on BUP 107043 also opposes the application. She says her building deteriorated due to committee inaction, with painting last done in 2011. She says the DBCLs do not contain any designated colours for The Palladian. She says approval was sought and obtained from the Architectural Authority and the committee for The Palladian to repaint the building in earthy neutral colours that complied with the guidelines and painting was undertaken and completed in July 2024. She is very pleased with the results and is appreciative of the committee's efforts.
• [35] The owner of another lot in a BUP provided a submission that included a history of The Palladian and the works of the Italian architect - Andrea Palladio - that inspired the architecture and the name of the body corporate. The owner explains when purchasing the lot in 2022, she had concerns about the dated, unkempt appearance, but was reassured that funds were accumulated and renovation works (including painting) were imminent. This prompted the owner to become a member of the committee. At the time, the owner says she had concerns about the functioning of the committee and the applicant's actions as the chairperson at that time. The body corporate later decided at an EGM to remove the applicant from the committee. The owner reports that painting for the buildings on 5 of the BUPs is complete, with another building in progress and one scheduled. She says the colours comply with the DCBLs, have been approved by the Architectural Authority, and are in keeping with The Palladian's timeless architectural design. She also says:
  1. there are no designated colours for The Palladian in any by-laws
  2. the two-tone colours used in 2011 were not the original colours of The Palladian and those colours were avoided due to costs
  3. the new colours (3) were chosen to offer better light reflectivity, reduce heat absorption, align with the DCBLs and classic aesthetics, were pre-approved by the Architectural Authority, and were supported by 84% of BUP owners
  4. the colours are within the "light" range (58-72) and not within the white range (73-93)
  5. the 35 GTP owners were not consulted because they do not live in condominiums and are not required to paint their properties,[8] and
  6. the cost of painting expressly excluded the shutters, which had been painted in 2011 onsite in a tent inadvertently in breach of workplace safety regulations, and for which the committee was obtaining quotes for painting in a compliant offsite booth.
• [36] The same owner requests that the application be dismissed and costs awarded against the applicant in favour of the body corporate.
• [37] Another lot owner opposing the application echoes many of the general points made by others and provides specific reasons why each of the orders should not be made. The lot owner comments that the choice of painting contractor has been successful, with quality results and positive feedback from BUP owners. The owner also provides more detail about issues with the shutters.
• [38] Another owner submits that the order in The Palladian [2024] QBCCMCmr 185 changed owners' long held understanding of the painting requirements for the body corporate. She understands it meant the body corporate could not dictate by consensus the paint colours used by owners of GTP lots but could only require the colours complied with the DCBLs and were approved by the Architectural Authority. She says BUP owners also wanted a greater say in how their buildings looked, with most wanting to modernise the colour scheme. The owner claims in March 2024, all owners with The Palladian were given an opportunity to volunteer on a painting sub-committee and to provide opinions and colour suggestions for consideration. She says hundreds of hours were spent on the process, which she describes.
• [39] Finally, on behalf of the body corporate, the committee submits its view of the factual background and presents legal argument why the orders sought by the applicant should not be made. Regarding the facts, the committee says:
  1. the original colour scheme for the Palladian is no longer evident, with substantial changes made over the years, particularly in 2011
  2. it has been over 10 years since the last repainting, with the respondent responsible for the costs of repainting irrespective of colour selection
  3. the colours used in the recent painting works did involve some change, with some colour changes barely noticeable but many changes "prominent"
  4. the owners of each BUP were canvassed for their colour scheme preferences, with each BUP being treated as a separate case, and
  5. the colour changes have the approval of the Hope Island PBC.
• [40] The committee's legal arguments are described below in the Analysis section.

• [41] The applicant reviewed the submissions and provided a reply. In terms of paint colours she says:
  1. the colours used in 2011 were similar to the original colour scheme for The Palladian and therefore not a substantial change
  2. none of the current committee members owned a lot at the time of the 2011 repainting and are therefore not qualified to express an opinion about the degree of change, moreover, computer editing of colours may have been used on the images in some of the submissions
  3. the 2011 colours were approved at a general meeting, and are still available today
  4. for her lot, she used the colours approved at the general meeting and did not "dictate" the colour scheme
  5. the committee's submission confirms it selected the colours to be presented for the owners of each BUP to vote for their preferred scheme after which the committee then approved motions for repainting, and
  6. the paint colours used in the 2024 repainting works are described as "whites" and "greys."
• [42] Regarding the shutters, the applicant accepts that these need to be removed for the repainting of the buildings but says there is no good reason for the shutter repainting to be treated as a separate project distinct from the painting. Whether all the shutters will be painted and re-instated has yet to be determined, with no motions yet proposed. The applicant notes that a voting paper issued to BUP owners about their preferences for removal or re-instatement of the shutters has not been withdrawn.
• [43] The applicant's legal arguments in support of the orders sought are described below.

• [44] After the time to make submissions had expired, the committee advised that the body corporate had held a general meeting in April 2025 at which it considered and passed several motions relating to the painting and maintenance works. The applicant was invited to comment. The applicant takes the position that the calling of the general meeting was a consequence of the issues raised in the application and many of the motions presented were to legitimise issues that had been previously disregarded by the committee. In her view, the body corporate's passing of the motions does not alter nor resolve the issues in dispute.

• [45] The primary issues in dispute are whether the body corporate has authorised painting and related works for buildings located on 7 of the 9 BUPs that form part of The Palladian in the way required by the legislation and in compliance with applicable by-laws.
• [46] I will first review some of the legal principles that are generally applicable to the issues raised. I will then make findings of fact and, applying the legal principles, make determinations about whether the body corporate has complied with the legislation and The Palladian by-laws. Finally, in view of those determinations, I will separately consider whether to make any of the 6 orders sought by the applicant.

• [47] The body corporate is charged with the control, management and administration of the common property for the benefit of proprietors, including by properly maintaining the common property.[9]
• [48] Relevantly, however, the BUGT Act also provides that the body corporate may:
  1. make by-laws, which are binding on the body corporate, all proprietors, and certain others[10]
  2. make by-laws giving the owner of one or more lots exclusive or special privileges relating to parts of common property upon conditions, which can include the payment of monies by those proprietors,[11] and also that
  3. make improvements to common property where;
     1. the cost of improvements "in any one case" does not exceed the prescribed amount, or
     2. it resolves by resolution without dissent to do so, or
     3. resolves that the improvements are considered essential for the health, safety or security of users of the common property and a referee by order approves the improvements.
• [49] In addition, the DCBLs - which are made by the Hope Island Resort PBC - bind the body corporate and all proprietors of lots in The Palladian.[12]
• [50] Referees do not have jurisdiction to resolve disputes about the DCBLs. Disputes about contraventions or alleged contraventions of a DCBL may be dealt with by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).[13]
• [51] In terms of making decisions about expenditure and common property, the committee may make decisions on behalf of the body corporate - including decisions about maintenance of common property - provided the decisions are not about restricted issues. In addition, the committee cannot decide to undertake expenditure above the prescribed amount except for emergencies or as authorised by the body corporate or a referee.[14]
• [52] Decisions about restricted matters, about expenditure above the prescribed amount, or where a provision of the BUGT Act expressly requires the decision to be made by a certain resolution, must be made by the proprietors at a general meeting of the body corporate.

• [53] In this case, the body corporate made separate decisions about painting expenditure and painting colours at different times, and in different ways.

• [54] Based on the evidence presented, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities of the following:

1. the buildings on the 9 BUPs had not been painted since 2011 and it is not disputed that, to be properly maintained, the exterior of those buildings required painting 2. the body corporate considered two motions at the July 2024 EGM for quotes to paint the exterior of 7 of the BUPs, with neither of the motions specifying the colours to be used, and the explanatory notes stating that 1. the cost of painting had been calculated/priced separately for the 8-lot BUPs versus the 12-lot BUPs, with the two quotes presented being the sum of the total costs for painting each of the 7 BUPs 2. the painting each of the 7 BUPs was to be funded from the 7 separate and BUP specific maintenance funds set up and contributed to by owners of lots in each of the respective BUPs 3. decisions about colours would be made for each building/BUP at a later time, with owners of lots in each of the BUPs consulted regarding their building, and 4. to paint the buildings in the existing colours would cost more than the quotes presented.

1. the body corporate passed Motion 5 at the July 2024 EGM, with 34 votes in favour and only 1 against, thereby resolving to approve expenditure for painting the exterior of the 7 BUPs (for a total of around $325,000)

1. after the July 2024 EGM and after consulting with lot owners in each of the 7 BUPs, the committee made decisions about colours schemes for each of those BUPs and the new colours were approved by the Architectural Authority 2. the painting works commenced in August 2024 and are now substantially (and possibly wholly) complete, with additional funds expended during the process relating to removal of the external common property shutters attached to some of the BUPs to facilitate the painting works and for the painting of some internal areas (foyers) for some BUPs 3. at an EGM held in April 2025, the body corporate decided to: 1. ratify committee decisions about expenditure for shutter removal (5 BUPs), repainting of shutters (1 BUP), and foyer painting (2 BUPs) 2. authorise additional expenditure relating to shutter painting and reinstallation for 6 BUPs, and 3. authorise additional expenditure to paint the foyers for the remainder of the 7 BUPs.

• [55] In summary, the applicant contends, expressly or by implication, that the legislation precludes the committee from making decisions about changing the paint colours for two reasons. Firstly, she asserts that changing the external paint colours for the BUPs is an improvement to common property. She argues that, where the painting works were "one case" and exceeded the prescribed amount of $206,000, the legislation requires that the painting improvement works had to be authorised by a resolution without dissent made by the body corporate at a general meeting. Secondly, she claims that all lot owners have a "right" to participate in the choice of colours for the common property. As a result, a decision about changing paint colours is a matter that alters the rights of owners and is restricted matter for the committee.
• [56] The committee makes several arguments opposing these claims. Firstly, it says the painting is required maintenance and expenditure on painting was required regardless of the choice of colour. Citing Coronation Towers [2024] QBCCMCmr 182, it says the painting should be viewed as maintenance and not an improvement.
• [57] Secondly, to the extent the referee does consider colour changes to be an improvement, then for the purposes of section 37(2)(g)(i) of the BUGT Act, it argues that each of the colour changes for the different BUPs should be seen as "one case," i.e., that if there are improvements, there are 7 improvements, and not just one. It says this means that the improvement did not require a resolution without dissent. In support of this argument, the body corporate points to the fact that lot owners were consulted on a per BUP basis with the result that different BUPs have different colour schemes.
• [58] Thirdly, the body corporate says the committee had the power to make decisions about colour changes. It says section 37(2)(g)(i) of the BUGT Act does not specify that decisions on improvements costing below the prescribed amount must be made in a general meeting. Moreover, it says the matter of a colour change for each of the BUPs is not a restricted matter for the committee because it does not alter the rights, privileges, or obligations of proprietors.
• [59] Finally, the body corporate says the process of canvassing the colour preferences of lot owners for each of the BUPs is consistent with the democratic principles contained in the IRD and BUGT Acts. It is also consistent with the decision of the referee in The Palladian [2024] QBCCMCmr 185, which it says drew a distinction between maintenance of GTP lots (like the applicant's) and for the 9 BUPs. It says the applicant is effectively arguing that she has the right to deny owners of lots in BUPs their colour preference, even when only those owners bear the costs, while as an owner of a GTP lot she has discretion (subject to the by-laws) to select the colour for her own building. The body corporate says this argument should be rejected.
• [60] I have considered the above arguments, the facts as I have found them, and the applicable legislation and I conclude as follows.
• [61] The body corporate bifurcated its decision making and made separate decisions about expenditure on painting (Maintenance Cost Decision) and the colour selection for painting (Colour Decisions). The Maintenance Cost Decision was made by the body corporate at a general meeting, and the Colour Decisions were made by the committee after consultation with lot owners in each of the BUPs.
• [62] The applicant has not persuaded me that the body corporate acted unreasonably in the circumstances and in the context of The Palladian when it decided to make those decisions separately.[15] In proposing to separate the decision making about expenditure and colours, I am satisfied that the committee considered the relevant factors. Those factors included that the body corporate consists of a combination of owners of lots on GTPs and lots on BUPs, the body corporate has a by-law with the effect that the BUP lot owners are to bear the maintenance costs for their particular BUP, and that the Architectural Authority must approve (or reject) painting colours selected for exterior aspects of buildings.
• [63] I am also satisfied that proprietors were on notice from the explanatory notes for the motions, and implicitly approved, that the decision making about painting costs and colours was to be bifurcated. Further, where owners of BUP lots specifically contribute funds to the maintenance costs (including painting) of their own BUP, in my opinion it was legally reasonable for the committee to propose, and the body corporate to implicitly agree, to let the committee, after consulting owners of each of the BUPs, make the Colour Decisions.
• [64] Which brings me to the decisions themselves and how the legislation required those decisions were authorised. In my view, the Maintenance Cost Decision itself was primarily a decision about expenditure on maintenance and not a decision about an improvement to common property. As a result, I am satisfied that the BUGT Act did not require the body corporate to authorise Motion 5 at the July 2024 by a resolution without dissent. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the decision to pass Motion 5 (i.e., the Maintenance Cost Decision), was a valid decision of the body corporate.
• [65] After the Maintenance Cost Decision had been made by the body corporate, as predicated, the committee consulted the owners of the 7 BUPs and made a Colour Decision for each to use a new colour scheme for the exterior that differed in an observable way from existing colours. Therefore, the next question is whether the Colour Decisions were decisions that could be made by the committee or if the Colour Decisions had to be made at a general meeting.
• [66] Section 46 of the BUGT Act provides that decisions of the committee, other than decisions about restricted matters, are decisions of the body corporate. The term "restricted matter" is defined in the section to include two categories of matter that are potentially relevant here, namely:

**(b) any matter which seeks to alter the rights, privileges or obligations of proprietors; and ....

(d) any matter a decision on which may, in accordance with any provision of this Act, only be made by the body corporate pursuant to a unanimous resolution, resolution without dissent or a special resolution or in general meeting of the body corporate; and**

• [67] The applicant suggests several reasons why the Colour Decisions were about restricted matters for which the committee was not permitted to make decisions. The applicant claims she has a right to have a say in the colours used on common property. Accordingly, she suggests that the committee could not make the Colour Decisions because such decisions affected her rights. Ergo, pursuant to section 46(1)(b) of the BUGT Act, she says the decision was about a restricted matter.
• [68] The applicant does not explain the basis for her position that she has "rights" in respect of the colours used on exclusive use areas of common property. Although I consider that the applicant may have an interest in the colours used thereon, in my opinion, such an interest does not equate to or necessarily rise to the level of a "right." As such, in my view the Colour Decisions were not about altering the rights or privileges of proprietors. I also note that the applicant's interest in the colours of the common property is subject to the DCBLs and to the decisions of the Architectural Authority. For these reasons, I am satisfied section 46(1)(b) of the BUGT Act did not preclude the committee from making the Colour Decisions on behalf of the body corporate.
• [69] The next question is whether there is another provision of the BUGT Act that required the Colour Decisions to be decided at a general meeting and/or by a particular type of resolution, which would make the matter a restricted one for the committee pursuant to section 46(1)(d) of the BUGT Act.
• [70] The applicant argues that there is such a provision, namely, section 37(2)(g) of the BUGT Act. That section provides in pertinent that a body corporate may

**(g) make or cause to be made improvements to the common property where -

(i) in any one case, the cost of the improvements does not exceed the prescribed amount; or

(ii) the body corporate by resolution without dissent so resolves; or ....**

• [71] The applicant says that changing the paint colour scheme on common property buildings is an improvement. She argues that because the total cost of the painting works (circa $325,000) for the 7 BUPs exceeds the prescribed amount (which she says is $206,000 for The Palladian), section 37(2)(g)(i) therefore applies to require the matter of colour change (the improvement) to be determined by the body corporate at a general meeting by resolution without dissent.
• [72] The BUGT Act provides no definition for the term "improvement." In a similar context, the BCCM Act defines an "improvement" to include a "change."[16] In my view, when the term "improvement" is used in the BUGT Act, it should similarly be interpreted to include certain works (but not all) that involve a non-minor change.[17]
• [73] In this case, I am satisfied that there was a change, or substitution, from one colour scheme to a new colour scheme that is observably different. Indeed, the respondent acknowledges the change of colour is, at least in some cases, a prominent and non-minor change. Several owners who made submissions also referred to the change in paint colours as "modernising" the appearance of their buildings. Where paint was available in the pre-existing colours, I consider the Colour Decisions also represented a voluntary change. For those reasons, in my view, each of the Colour Decisions was a decision about an improvement to common property.
• [74] The next question, therefore, is whether section 37(2)(g) applies to require that the Colour Decisions be made a general meeting and/or by a resolution without dissent. As an initial matter, section 37(2)(g)(i) does not expressly require all decisions about improvements to be made at a general meeting.[18] Rather, it permits the body corporate to decide to make improvements where the cost in "any one case" does not exceed the prescribed amount.[19]
• [75] In the present case, the painting itself was maintenance expenditure, which had been previously approved at the July 2024 EGM. The applicant presents no evidence that the Colour Decisions involved any additional costs to the body corporate, much less expenditure that would exceed the prescribed amount. Indeed, the explanatory notes suggest changing from the existing colours to a new colour scheme was more cost effective. Accordingly, I am satisfied that even though the Colour Decisions were decisions about improvements, those decisions did not involve expenditure exceeding the prescribed amount for section 37(2)(g)(i).[20]
• [76] Where section 37(2)(g)(i) does not specify that the body corporate must make decisions about improvements under the prescribed amount at a general meeting, and the Colour Decisions involved no expenditure, I am not persuaded that that Colour Decisions were about a restricted matter for the committee.

• [77] The applicant also separately takes the position that the new colour schemes for the BUPs contravene or are inconsistent with both The Palladian's By-laws and the DCBLs.
• [78] As an initial matter, I consider I have no jurisdiction to resolve disputes about alleged contraventions of the DCBLs. Should the applicant wish to pursue those allegations, she would need to do so by filing a claim with QCAT.
• [79] In terms of The Palladian's By-laws, By-law 27 provides that a proprietor or occupier of a lot in The Palladian must comply with the DCBLs (and other by-laws) and that a breach of the DCBLs or other by-laws will also constitute a breach of The Palladian By-laws. The applicant asserts that the change in paint colour schemes for the BUPs means the body corporate is not complying with the DCBLs and is therefore also in breach of By-law 27.
• [80] In my view, the primary responsibility for applying and enforcing the DCBLs rests with the Hope Island Resort PBC and the Architectural Authority. I accept the evidence presented that the committee sought and obtained the approval of the Architectural Authority for the new paint colour schemes for the BUPs. I am, therefore, satisfied that the body corporate has taken steps to comply with the DCBLs and by implication to also comply By-law 27 of The Palladian's By-laws.
• [81] I consider that the applicant's argument that, notwithstanding the approvals from the Architectural Authority, the new paint colour schemes nevertheless contravene the DCBLs, is ultimately a dispute about the interpretation and application of the DCBLs. As stated above, as a referee, I do not consider I have jurisdiction to make findings or orders for such a dispute.

• [82] The applicant also asserts that the removal and disposal of common property shutters is a change to common property that the committee (and owners of lots in BUPs) cannot approve.
• [83] I am satisfied the temporary removal of the shutters was necessary to facilitate the painting works. Although there was some evidence presented by the applicant that disposal of the shutters may have been at least contemplated at some point, the body corporate represents it is not intending to dispose of the shutters. In addition, since the time the application was made, the body corporate has considered and passed several motions about the shutters. Specifically, at an EGM held in April 2025, the body corporate decided to pass:
  1. Motion 5 and ratify expenditure on shutter removal to facilitate painting for 5 of the BUPs
  2. Motion 6 and ratify expenditure on painting shutters for 1 of the BUPs, and
  3. Motion 7 to approve a quote to paint and reinstall shutters on 6 of the BUPs.
• [84] In view of these resolutions, I am satisfied the body corporate is retaining the shutters, has approved expenditure on maintenance of the shutters at a general meeting, and there is no longer a dispute about disposal of common property shutters.

• [85] In view of my determinations above, I will next consider whether any of the orders sought by the applicant are warranted or appropriate in the circumstances. For ease of reference, I have retained the applicant's numbering for the requested orders.

• [86] The applicant seeks an order that the body corporate amend the costs to repaint the 8-lot and 12-lot BUPs to include the costs (per BUP) to paint different elements of the common property and to remove, paint, and re-install all the shutters, and issue a copy of the cost per BUP for those works as well as the repainting of the BUP foyers.
• [87] In my view, the motions proposed and passed by the body corporate at its April 2025 EGM provide the information sought by the orders and render them moot. Accordingly, I decline to make this order and dismiss this part of the application.

• [88] The applicant seeks an order declaring that the committee, acting on behalf of the body corporate, (a) unlawfully delegated its responsibility to determine improvements to common property to owners of lots in BUPs, and (b) unlawfully approved and authorised painting in colours that do not comply with The Palladian By-laws or the DCBLs.
• [89] For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied the committee delegated its decision making power to the owners of lots in BUPs. I am satisfied it was the committee (with Architectural Authority Approval) that made the decisions about the paint colours and decline to make the first part of the requested order. Where I do not consider I have jurisdiction to make determinations or orders about alleged contraventions of the DCBLs, I must dismiss the second part of the order sought for lack of jurisdiction.

• [90] The applicant seeks an order declaring that motions 5 and 6 approved by the body corporate at an EGM held in July 2024 are invalid.
• [91] For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that Motion 5 approved by the body corporate at the July 2024 EGM was invalid at the time it was passed. Moreover, to the extent it could be viewed as partially deficient because it did not include all of the costs for shutter removal, the additional expenditure has been subsequently ratified by the body corporate at the April 2025 EGM. Motion 6 proposed at the July 2024 EGM was ruled out of order so there is no "approval" for that motion to invalidate. I therefore decline to make this order.

• [92] The applicant seeks an order declaring that the committee, acting on behalf of the body corporate, unlawfully approved and authorised painting of BUPs 107042 and 107043 (the 2-lot condominiums) in new colours that amount to a change to common property and for which the cost of the works exceed the committee's spending limit.
• [93] Even if the spending on painting for the 2-lot BUPs was not properly authorised at the time, I am satisfied that expenditure was subsequently ratified by the body corporate when it passed Motion 11 at its April 2025 EGM. For that reason, I decline to make this order. Questions about the colours used and compliance with the DCBLs are beyond my jurisdiction.

• [94] The applicant seeks an order that the body corporate issue copies to all owners of the quotes for painting BUPs 107042 and 107043 (the same 2-lot BUPs that are the subject of Order 5) and the minutes of the resolution approving the quote.
• [95] Where the resolution ratifying the expenditure for these painting works includes the amount of the invoices for the respective works, I consider the information sought by this requested order has already been provided. I decline to make this order sought as it would be redundant.

• [96] The applicant seeks an order declaring that:

... the Communications building (known as the Comms. Hut), the fountain and its enclosure, the "pergola" over the secondary thoroughfare pathway to BUPs 106937 and 106920, and all structures and fixtures, including the garden urns, on the secondary thoroughfare, are Principal Body Corporate assets, the re-painting and maintenance of which is the responsibility of the Principal Body Corporate and is not to be paid for from The Palladian Body Corporate's funds.

• [97] For this particular issue, the applicant appears to be speculating that, with the painting of all of the BUPs in The Palladian freshly painted, "there will be some owners who will expect" the above referenced Hope Island Resort PBC assets to also be repainted given The Palladian paid for the painting of those areas in 2011. The applicant contends it is important that the committee and the body corporate understand those areas are not part of The Palladian's common property and responsibility for painting them lies with the Hope Island Resort PBC.
• [98] In response, the body corporate has confirmed it recognises the responsibility for maintaining the "Comms Hut" lies with the Hope Island Resort PBC and has no plans on spending The Palladian's funds in doing so.
• [99] In my view, the parties agree that the Hope Island Resort PBC is responsible for maintaining the Comms Hut and there is thus no dispute for me to resolve. I also consider generally that there is no utility in restating legislative obligations.[21] For these reasons, I decline to make the 7th Order sought by the applicant.

• [100] For the reasons given above, I have dismissed the application in its entirety.
• [101] I note the body corporate at the interim stage of the application, and one of the owners making a submission opposing this application, asked that costs be awarded against the applicant. Where the application involved complex legal issues and I did not dismiss it for any of the reasons that would enliven my power to make a costs order,[22] I have not made such an order.

[1] See The Proprietors - Rosebank GTP 3033 v Locke & Anor [2016] QCA 192 at [102]

[3] The 35 lots are registered either on GTP 106768 or on a GTP of amalgamation (GTA). Group titles plans are now known as standard format plans of subdivision.

[4] A BUP of resubdivision is registered with the pre-fix "BRP." The arrangements have been discussed in several previous orders. See e.g., The Palladian [2011] QBCCMCmr 311. For The Palladian, the 9 plans with BUP of resubdivision are registered as: BRP 106920, BRP 106937, BRP 106944, BRP 106953, BRP 106956, BRP 107036, BRP 107037, BRP 107042, and BRP 107043.

[5] See Section 48C of the Land Title Act 1994 (LTA)

[7] The applicant notes that the Hope Island Resort PBC and not The Palladian is responsible for maintaining assets on the secondary thoroughfare.

[8] See The Palladian [2024] QBCCMCmr 185

[9] See Sections 37(1) and 37(1)(c)(i) of the BUGT Act

[10] See Section 30(5) of the BUGT Act

[11] See Section 176(7) of the IRD Act

[12] See Section 176(7) of the IRD Act

[13] See Sections 179A(2)(a) and 179B of the IRD Act

[14] See Sections 46 and 47 of the BUGT Act

[15] To be clear, I am not saying it will always be reasonable to split decision making about expenditure and colour into two separate decisions with the latter to be made by the committee. My finding on this issue is confined and limited to this particular scheme and these specific circumstances.

[16] Section 36 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 defines the term change to include an addition, exception, omission or substitution.

[17] For a more detailed explanation of my views in the context of the BCCM Act as to what may amount to an improvement, see Nimrod 1 [2023] QBCCMCmr 419 at [53] - [61]

[18] In contrast, sections 37(2)(g)(ii) and (iii) of the BUGT Act expressly reference decisions made by the body corporate at a general meeting.

[19] The corresponding regulations provide that for the purposes of this section, the prescribed amount is equal to $2,000 multiplied by "the number of lots the subject of the plan that includes the common property." See Section 9 of the Building Units and Group Titles Regulation 2008 (Regulations). I note that a committee is also subject to spending limit restrictions, see Regulations at section 12 and section 47(1) of the BUGT Act. In this case, however, where there is no expenditure on the colour change, I do not need to consider the possible interplay between sections 37(2)(g) and section 47(1) of the BUGT Act.

[20] Although I am inclined to the view that the improvement (colour change) of each BUP was "one case," for this section, where the Colour Decisions did not involve any expenditure, I do not need to reach a final determination on this point.

[21] See The Palladian [2023] QBCCMCmr 37 at [68]