The Rangers [2025] QBCCMCmr 251 (21 July 2025)

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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER - whether the interim order sought by the applicant is warranted in the circumstances.

1. The Body Corporate for The Rangers is restrained from granting permission or otherwise allowing the liquid amber (liquidambar) trees between Lot 35 and Lot 7 from being removed.
2. In the event permission has already been granted, the Body Corporate for The Rangers must immediately rescind its permission and take all necessary steps to ensure the liquid amber (liquidambar) trees between Lot 35 and Lot 7 are not removed.
3. This interim order has effect until 12 months have elapsed from the date of this order, a further interim or final order for the application is issued, or until the application is withdrawn or otherwise ended (whichever is earlier).

• [1] The Rangers CTS 20303 is a 29-lot scheme situated in Montville, Queensland. It is governed by the Standard Module. The applicant, David Klages, is a joint owner of Lot 35 in the scheme.
• [2] The applicant says the body corporate committee made a decision on 7 July 2025 to remove the liquid amber trees[1] between Lot 35 and Lot 7. He says no reasons have been given for the decision to remove the trees other than a vague suggestion of safety concerns and that the owner of Lot 7 does not like liquid amber trees.
• [3] The applicant says the liquid amber trees act as a soak for his septic system. He says the maintenance of the trees was a specific condition for the system which was approved by the previous committee when his property was built.
• [4] The applicant says his septic system has functioned without fault for more than 20 years. He says if the trees are removed, he will be responsible for any issues this could create despite not being at fault. He says the current committee refuses to acknowledge the conditions which were previously approved or that removal of the trees could create a problem.
• [5] The applicant seeks a final order that the body corporate's decision to remove the liquid amber trees be declared void and that the committee acknowledge the previous conditions approved for the septic system for Lot 35.
• [6] I understand the committee have indicated the trees will be removed at the end of July. To prevent the liquid amber trees from being removed while the applicant's application for a final order is being considered, the applicant seeks an interim order restraining the body corporate from removing them until his application is decided.
• [7] This is my consideration of the applicant's request for an interim order. The applicant bears the onus to establish that the interim order he seeks is warranted in the circumstances.

• [8] The applicant lodged this application for adjudication on 16 July 2025. The commissioner sought clarification on some aspects of the application and the application was amended.
• [9] The commissioner referred the interim order request to department adjudication under section 247(2)(b) of the Act.
• [10] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comment from a respondent or affected parties before an interim order is decided and I have elected not to do so in the circumstances of this case.

• [11] An adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that one is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates.[2]
• [12] In deciding whether an interim order is warranted in the circumstances, adjudicators often adopt the approach taken by courts to considering interim injunction applications.[3] Accordingly, to determine if it is just and equitable to make the interim order sought by the applicant, I must consider the substantive issues in dispute, the nature and urgency of the matter, as well as the balance of convenience between the parties. I will explain each consideration in more detail below.
• [13] Firstly, I must consider the substantive issues in dispute and be satisfied there is a serious legal question to be answered. At this stage, the applicant does not need to satisfy me that, on the balance of probabilities, their legal position is the correct one to take in the case. However, I must be satisfied the applicant's case has a sufficient likelihood of success to justify the making of an interim order prior to a full investigation into the matter being concluded.
• [14] Secondly, an adjudicator may make an interim order only if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[4] An applicant must therefore establish that the circumstances warrant an interim order. This may be where, for example, the order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm from taking place or to stop something that cannot be undone. I must also 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.

• [15] The applicant says he brought to the committee's attention that the liquid amber trees are an integral part of the septic system servicing Lot 35. He says he explained the trees in question act as a soak for the system and that the previous committee approved a specific condition that the trees be maintained when his property was built. The applicant says the committee has repeatedly failed to include these points in meeting minutes where the issue of the trees has been considered.
• [16] The applicant says the committee has provided no reasonable explanation for why it has decided to remove the trees other than a vague reference to safety concerns and that the owner of Lot 7 does not like liquid amber trees. He says the purported safety concerns have never been explained and no reports on the condition of the trees have been made public.
• [17] Section 94(2) of the Act sets out that the body corporate must act reasonably when carrying out its general functions, including when making, or not making, a decision. A decision of the committee is a decision of the body corporate,[5] and a committee acting on behalf of a body corporate must act reasonably in making a decision.[6]
• [18] The cases which deal with reasonableness emphasise that what is reasonable is a question of fact for the decision-maker to determine, and what is required is a careful weighing up of all the relevant factors while not taking irrelevant factors into account.[7]
  • [19] Having reviewed the materials submitted by the applicant, I am satisfied he has raised a live issue in relation to whether the committee have acted reasonably in making the decision to remove the liquid amber trees. My preliminary view is that the committee may not have taken all the relevant factors into account before making the decision to remove the liquid amber trees.[8]

Nature or urgency of the circumstances and balancing the inconvenience

• [20] As I have found the applicant has raised a serious legal issue in relation to the committee's decision to remove the liquid amber trees, I will go on to consider the nature and urgency of the circumstances and balancing the inconvenience in respect of the interim order sought.
• [21] The applicant indicated the trees were expected to be removed at the end of July. Given the timeframe, on 21 July 2025, this office contacted the applicant and confirmed that the liquid amber trees have not yet been removed.
• [22] I reiterate that an interim order is intended to prevent serious or irreparable harm from taking place or to stop something that cannot be undone. The applicant says that if the liquid amber trees are removed before his application for a final order is determined, it will make the application redundant. I agree that if the trees are removed before the application is decided, it will make the final order sought by the applicant redundant as the action of removing the trees cannot be undone.
• [23] On the other hand, if the applicant's application for a final order is unsuccessful, the body corporate will merely have been delayed in removing the trees. I note there is a vague suggestion that the trees may pose a safety risk. However, given the body corporate did not seek to remove them as a matter of urgency, I can see no reason why, based on the materials currently before me, that the removal cannot be delayed for a few more months.
• [24] In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied the balance of convenience weighs in favour of granting the interim order sought by the applicant.

• [25] For the reasons provided above, I am satisfied an interim order to stop the removal of the liquid amber trees is warranted in the circumstances.
• [26] The applicant says the actual removal of the trees will be undertaken by the owner of Lot 7 once the committee has issued him with approval to go ahead. I have therefore made an order restraining the body corporate from granting permission or otherwise allowing the liquid amber trees from being removed.
• [27] I note it is an offence not to comply with an adjudicator's order and a penalty may be sought.[9]
• [28] In this case, the respondent and affected parties were not given the opportunity to make submissions before the interim order was decided. However, an interim order may be cancelled or varied by an adjudicator until a final order is made.[10]
• [29] The dispute will now be referred back to the Commissioner to progress under the Act.[11]

[1] Otherwise known as liquidambar trees.

[3] For general principles see: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46 and SDW2 Pty Ltd v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] QSC 1

[7] Luadaka v Body Corporate for The Cover of Emerald Lakes [2013] QCATA 183 applying Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1997] FCA 1311; Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Styles [1989] FCA 342; Body Corporate for the Reserve v Trojan resorts Pty Ltd [2017] QCATA 53 (2 May 2017).

[8] I note the committee have made various decisions about the trees over several committee meetings and this issue will be further investigated in the context of the final order sought by the applicant.