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

Act, s 242; Standard Module, ss 58, 88, 160,175

• [1] Mark Downey, joint owner of lot 7 since August 2016 and former committee member, brings this application against the body corporate, challenging the validity of the 15 February 2025 annual general meeting (AGM). He seeks orders that the AGM be declared void and the AGM agenda document be withdrawn and amended to comply with the Act. Specifically, he wants the election of the new committee to be moved to be the last item of business in the agenda; the agenda to include a specific motion seeking approval for expenditure items in the 2025 budget which exceed the committee's spending limit; the statement of accounts to include figures from the 2023 financial year and the figure for levy payments in advance to be corrected. He wants the amended documents to be reviewed by the previous committee and, if satisfactory, submitted to an extraordinary general meeting (EGM), called by the secretary. He also asks that the current committee members be made aware of their responsibilities under section 101B of the Act and the Code of Conduct in Schedule 1A of the Act.

• [2] The Retreat - Witta was established in August 1993 with the registration of group titles plan (GTP) 3515, a standard format plan of subdivision. It contains 12 large semi-rural lots, ranging in size from 2633m2 (lot 4) to 4860m2 (lot 5) in the Sunshine Coast Hinterland area of Witta.
• [3] Submissions in response to the application were sought from the committee and all owners. 4 submissions were received from owners, and 1 from the committee. The applicant inspected the submissions but did not reply to them.

• [4] Submissions from the other 2 former committee members were supportive of the application, as detailed below.
• [5] Jennifer Bunt, owner of lot 9, submits that she was on the 2024/2025 committee and verifies that the applicant's reasons for adjudication are correct.
• [6] Mrs Susan Schefe, owner of lot 1, supports the application. She says she has reviewed the correspondence and minutes and shares the applicant's concerns that the committee, and in particular, the secretary, did not comply with the Act and Standard Module. She believes the way the AGM and subsequent committee process was handled was not transparent, not properly authorised by the committee and not in the best interests of owners.
• [7] She says it is clear from the documents provided in the application that the secretary ignored repeated concerns raised by other committee members about:
  • The format and content of the financial statements
  • The incorrect order of business on the AGM agenda
  • The lack of proper committee consideration and approval of the documents
• [8] It appears, submits Mrs Schefe, that the secretary acted alone and dismissed legitimate input from the majority of the committee, issuing documents that did not meet the requirements of the Standard Module.
• [9] She agrees with the applicant that the AGM documents were amended at the last minute and issued without the proper authority of the committee. She is concerned that this undermines confidence in the integrity of the body corporate's governance.
• [10] Mrs Schefe resigned as chairperson on 14 February 2025 (the day before the AGM) as a result of the secretary not undertaking to follow due process and expressing a lack of confidence in her professionalism.
• [11] Dr Marcus Bussey, owner of lot 2, opposes the application. He submits that this is about control and not really about process. The process was transparent and the members who initiated this process did not attend the AGM. Dr Bussey did attend and can attest that the AGM ran according to the rules. The secretary/treasurer declared a conflict of interest and stepped aside for the meeting to be led by the new chair. Owners voted on all motions and were satisfied that the treasurer's accounts were in order.
• [12] Leeann Clegg, owner of lot 10, submits that she decided to nominate for the secretary role on the committee in the hope of reducing some of the friction that was apparent within the Retreat. She says the applicant told her personally that he wanted a break from the role and that she had his support if she were to take it up. Ms Clegg says the applicant has a history of behaving in an authoritarian way and clashing with other committee members and lot owners. She says the treasurer resigned during the committee's first meeting after re-election in 2024 due to one of these clashes. In the end, Ms Clegg took on the treasurer role also because there were no other nominations for that position. This in part reflected the atmosphere within the committee at the time. Other committee members have walked out of meetings after conflicts with the applicant.
• [13] Ms Clegg continues that unfortunately, the applicant's support for her evaporated soon after taking on the roles and he turned his aggression towards her. She believes this change occurred once he realised she wouldn't be pushed around and that she would call out his bullying behaviour. She believes he is only interested in personal outcomes, having no regard for the impact of his actions on the other committee members or their small community as a whole.
• [14] Ms Clegg says she has retained the positions of secretary and treasurer on the current committee. Several of its ordinary members from last year were also retained. She says the committee is operating harmoniously and is acting in the interest of all lot owners.
• [15] The committee submits that it is committed to understanding the legislation in a working manner. Current committee members do not hold law qualifications. It is a body corporate committee for a semi-rural community of 12 lots. They strive to act with honesty, integrity and in the best interests of the community in which they live.
• [16] The current committee members take their role seriously, as they oversee their community. They recognise that their properties represent more than simply land and infrastructure. Their properties represent their retirement plans, their chosen lifestyles, and these important factors depend on their effectiveness as a committee. If they do not have a strong sense of community then they reduce The Retreat to no more than real estate. The committee represents all living within The Retreat and it does so to the best of its ability with respect to the legislation.

• [17] Section 242 of the Act requires an application seeking an order that a general meeting is invalid to be made within three months of the meeting. The applicant lodged this application on 20 June 2025 (after the conciliation application he made on 2 June 2025 was rejected), more than 3 months after the AGM he challenges.
• [18] Section 242(4)(b) of the Act permits me to waive non-compliance with the time limit if satisfied there is good reason for doing so.
• [19] In Kulcsar & Ors v Body Corporate for Larnaca Court CTS 10467[1], Justice Carmody said:

Relaxation of rigid time limits is a matter of discretion. It depends on whether it can be done without causing prejudice or detriment to a party. The discretion is a wide and unfettered one.

The discretion to extend time for starting a proceeding is aimed at avoiding injustice. In addition to a satisfactory explanation for the delay, to obtain a waiver, an applicant must demonstrate that an appeal is necessary to remedy a substantial injustice caused by an appealable error. Even a short delay will not be excused if the appeal would be futile and inconsistent with the due administration of justice.

• [20] Whether there is good reason for waiving non-compliance with the three-month time limit involves ...balancing of the length of the delay; the reason for the non-compliance; the effect of delay on others who are affected by the matter in dispute and importantly, whether apart from the question of non-compliance with the time requirement, an applicant is entitled to the relief sought.[2]

• [21] The length of the delay in this case is insubstantial - only a couple of weeks beyond the 3-month time limit.

• [22] The applicant proffers some explanation for the delay in bringing the application.
• [23] The applicant says he emailed a letter to the secretary on 2 April 2025 which contained a motion to be decided by the new committee. The applicant says he received a response on 11 May 2025 from the secretary with no indication that the matter had been placed before the committee. The applicant regarded it as a personal response from the secretary with no authority from the committee. The decision period for the motion expired on 13 May 2025.
• [24] At the date of expiry of the decision period, the applicant was aware that a committee meeting was scheduled for 21 May 2025. The applicant considered it was unreasonable to apply for dispute resolution until the committee decided the motion contained in his 2 April 2025 letter. The minutes of the committee meeting were received on 29 May 2025. The applicant was dissatisfied with the committee's handling of his motion (considered separately below) and proceeded to lodge this application.

• [25] The minutes of the AGM record that statutory motions were carried either without dissent, or with only 1 dissenting vote and the scheme appears to be functioning in accordance with the legislation based on the decisions made at the AGM, under the committee elected at it.
• [26] I note that it is now more than 7 months since the AGM and the scheme's financial year is almost ¾ of the way through. I consider that to invalidate the AGM at this point and require the matters the subject of it to be re-decided and a new committee elected, would have a significant detrimental effect on owners and the body corporate.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the relief sought

• [27] I do not see any utility in granting any of the orders sought. Even if the non-compliance with section 242 were waived, the applicant would not be entitled to the relief sought, as detailed below.

• [28] The applicant asserts that the AGM is invalid for the following reasons[3]:
  • The agenda was not approved by the committee and did not comply with the Act.
  • The agenda did not include a motion to approve the items in the draft 2025 Sinking Fund budget which exceeded the committee's spending limit of $2,400.
  • The Statement of Accounts format did not comply with the Act, contained factual errors, and was not approved by the committee before distribution to owners with the notice of meeting.
  • The 2025 budgets for the administrative fund and the sinking fund were not approved by the committee before distribution to owners with the notice of meeting.

• [29] The applicant says the agenda was not approved by the committee and did not comply with the Act.
• [30] The applicant says he understands that there is no formal process for the committee to approve the AGM documents but that the committee is responsible for the documents to comply with the Act. The applicant contends that if a motion to approve the documents had been put to the committee, it would have been defeated as there were 3 of the 6 members opposed to the documents. The AGM documents continued to be amended up until the day before the AGM. The secretary acted unilaterally without the express authority of the committee, to present the agenda and statement of accounts to the AGM.
• [31] In her letter of 11 May 2025, responding to the applicant's 2 April 2025 letter, the secretary and treasurer, Leeann Clegg, says The agenda for the AGM was prepared by the committee as evidenced by the December committee meeting minutes and in the numerous subsequent emails on the subject. Compiling the agenda and sending it falls to the Secretary. There is no formal process that requires the agenda to be approved by the committee.
• [32] The current committee (comprised of Leeann Clegg (secretary/treasurer), Mr Ross Watkins (chairperson), ordinary members Mr David Atkins, Mr Andrew Pulfer, Mr John Brown and Ms Hannah Magometovs) submits that the secretary received correspondence from the applicant dated 2 April 2025 which included a list of requests to action. A reply was sent from Leeann Clegg outlining each of the items on the list, and a summary stating that his concerns were not warranted but that the issue would be tabled at the following committee meeting to decide if an EGM was deemed necessary by the committee. The committee meeting was held with all current members present on 21 May 2025. The following is the motion that related to this particular concern.

Motion: Based on the information presented and reviewed, the 2025 committee members are satisfied that compliance was met and maintained for the 15th February 2025 Annual General Meeting.

• [33] The committee stands by this motion and does not intend to void the AGM (unless instructed to do so by the adjudicator) held on the 15/02/2025.
• [34] The committee provides the following timeline of events leading up to the AGM:

23/10/2024 Committee meeting held with 2025 budget as an agenda item

29/11/2024 AGM date set for Sat 15 February 2025 - 79 days out

8/12/2024 AGM draft motions and 2025 budget sent to committee members

19/12/2024 Committee meeting held with 2025 budget as an agenda item

22/01/2025 AGM draft agenda sent to committee members

• [35] The budget was approved in a committee meeting on 19 December 2024 and signed minutes were emailed to all on the 28 December. There was one change to the budget and that was to add the new levies into the income section. No changes were made to the expenditure budget after the 19 December meeting. A proposed levy increase of $425 per lot was entered into this budget to be presented in detail at the AGM for vote. On the 24 January 2025 the committee pulled together as one and got the agenda reviewed and sent out to all within the 21 days.
• [36] From 24 January to the 12 February there was no communication regarding the AGM. Communication recommenced on 12 February 2025 at 9.05pm from the chairperson, Susi Schefe, on her return from overseas travel, and continued until the 14 February. The requests continued until 24 hours out from the AGM. As stated above, a joint effort had occurred on 24 January 2025, with approval received from 4 of the 6 committee members.
• [37] Regarding the election of the new committee not being the last item of business in the agenda, the committee submits that the chairperson, Susi Schefe, raised this issue in an email on the 12 February 2025 received at 9.05pm. Leeann Clegg explained to the committee in an email sent on 14 February 2025 at 8.39am that the change was made back on 10 December 2024 when Jennifer Bunt raised the issue around the need for clear differentiation between motions submitted from lot owners and official committee motions. As a result, the agenda order was changed to ensure the motions being raised by Leeann Clegg were clearly submitted as a lot owner rather than as secretary.
• [38] Secretary Leeann Clegg sent an email to all owners the morning prior to the AGM with the following notes placed into the agenda between motions 9 (Financial approval required for previous spend) and 10 (Election of Committee): "Chairperson may wish to leave this Motion to the completion of 11 & 12. It would normally be the closing motion at an AGM".
• [39] At the AGM, the person elected to chair the meeting, Ross Watkins, read the note to ensure clarity was maintained regarding the origin of motions 11 and 12 as not representative of the previous committee, but submitted by Leeann Clegg as a lot owner. Motion 10 was parked and considered as the last item of the AGM.
• [40] The committee provided a copy of the minutes of its meeting on 19 December 2024. They show that the agenda for the AGM, including motions, committee election, and the formulation of a budget to recommend to the AGM, was discussed at some length. A draft AGM agenda was distributed in December and the proposed budget was included in the minutes.
• [41] Although the agenda distributed to owners did not place the election of the committee as the last item of business, as required by section 31(1) of the Standard Module, it was in fact, the last item of business addressed at the meeting. It appears the motions submitted by the owner of lot 10 were placed last on the agenda to address concerns expressed by former committee member, Jennie Bunt, that owners would find it difficult to differentiate those motions from motions submitted by the committee unless they were separated. I find it difficult to understand this concern given that section 88(6) of the Standard Module requires the voting paper to state for each motion, if the motion is submitted by the committee - that the motion is submitted by the committee, and if the motion is not submitted by the committee - the name and lot number of the person submitting the motion) and the agenda and voting paper specifically included this information, even stating for the 3 motions submitted by Leeann Clegg, that they were submitted as Lot 10 owner, not as part of the Committee.
• [42] There is no evidence before me that the defect in the order of business listed on the agenda had any effect on voting results or the election of the committee and there would be no point in re-issuing the agenda and convening an EGM to redecide matters at this point.

Approval for items in sinking fund budget exceeding committee spending limit

• [43] The applicant says the agenda did not include a motion to approve the items in the draft 2025 sinking fund budget which exceeded the committee's spending limit of $2,400.
• [44] The secretary/treasurer, in her response on 11 May 2025 says 2025 sinking fund budget approval was completed under Motion 5. Listed on this document was $29,635.65 for carry over items from 2024 these items were addressed and approved for the money to be spent under Motion 9, leaving 4 items over our $2400 spend limit yet to be approved. 3 of these items will be going back to the market with (new tenders) and the final of the 4 items is to pay our project manager $3,360 for services rendered, I will get the appropriate approval from all lot owners in the coming weeks.
• [45] The committee says this item was raised late in the lead-up to the AGM, leaving little time to respond. On 14 February 2025, secretary Leeann Clegg requested that the chairperson at the time add the item to the agenda during the AGM. Due to the last-minute resignation of the sitting chairperson, the secretary Leeann Clegg did not wish to request that the new chairperson add motions at the AGM.
• [46] The 2025 budget was reviewed during the AGM; 4 items were impacted by the $2,400 spend limit. It was decided that 3 of these items should be put back out to tender which would require all owners' input at a later date and prior to engaging new contractors.
• [47] The fourth and remaining item impacted by the $2,400 spend limit was to pay a Project Manager an amount of $3,360 for services rendered (in part - initially engaged in 2021). The payment will be made upon the completion of works; this figure had been part of the previous years' approved budget. At the committee meeting held on 21 May 2025, the six committee members present signed an approval for the spend. The remaining six lot owners will be consulted with a view to approving the spend prior to completion of the works.
• [48] I am satisfied that the committee understands the legislative requirements in relation to spending. In its minutes of its meeting from 19 December 2024, the following appears:

Note Only The relevant limit for committee spending is $200 per lot x 12 = $2,400 including

GST. Anything over this amount will need approval by ordinary resolution (vote) at a general

Note Only- Major spending Limit is $10,000 confirmation that we require 2 quotes to add

• [49] There is no evidence before me that the committee has engaged in any spending above its relevant limit for spending without appropriate authority.

• [50] The applicant says the Statement of Accounts format did not comply with the Act, contained factual errors, and was not approved by the committee before distribution to body corporate members with the notice of the meeting.
• [51] In her reply of 11 May 2025, the secretary/treasurer says At the AGM, two financial documents were presented and reviewed under motion 2, these were Statement of Accounts Rev 4 and Annual Report - Amended. These documents are similar to those used by The Retreat committee previously. I believe the information contained within the documents to be accurate (and contained the feedback provided by the committee members at the time) and to be in line with the Regulation requirements. Motion 2 was voted on and accepted at the AGM.
• [52] Ms Schefe, former chairperson, submits that past non-compliance does not justify ongoing non-compliance. If it is discovered that the financial statements and agenda documents have previously not complied with the Standard Module, it is the committee's obligation to correct this and ensure compliance going forward. Repeating errors because "that's how it's been done" is not acceptable.
• [53] Ms Schefe says that 3 of the 6 committee members raised specific concerns supported by reference to the Act and Standard Module. The proper course of action would have been to urgently convene a committee meeting (or conduct a vote outside a meeting under section 54 of the Standard Module) to formally decide the matter, rather than unilaterally refuse. Instead, the secretary rejected the requested amendments without referring the matter to the committee for a proper vote.
• [54] Ms Schefe says this failure to act collectively is inconsistent with the role of the committee and the secretary's duties as an officer of the body corporate.
• [55] She says the secretary acknowledged several errors - such as incorrect levies in the budget and failure to include required details in the financial statements - but insisted these could not be corrected for the AGM.
• [56] If errors are identified before the AGM, Ms Schefe says they should be corrected, and supplementary or corrected documents should be issued to owners. Not correcting known errors misleads owners and undermines the integrity of the meeting. Several of the amendments requested, such as correcting budget figures and including prior-year's financial data, were mandatory under the Standard Module, not optional.
• [57] The applicant seeks an order that the Statements of Accounts presented to the AGM be withdrawn and amended to comply with the Act. In relation to his specific request that the figures from the 2023 financial year (1/1/2023 - 31/12/2023) be included the committee submits that correspondence between committee members prior to the 2025 AGM expressed confusion regarding the Act's requirements to include 2023 financial figures. Those figures were made available to all owners in AGM correspondence (2023 figures were contained within motion 1 documents); however, the 2023 financial figures had not been included in the AGM's current statement of accounts. Financial figures for years 2023 to 2025 that were voted on in motions 1 and 2 have been subsequently combined into one document, as required.
• [58] The applicant says the figure stated for levy payments in advance needs to be corrected. The committee says this item had not been raised with the committee until this application was lodged. The Statement of Accounts shows $100 paid in advance, as there is an owner who prepays their annual levy account in instalments. When this money was received in December 2024, all levies were paid in full for 2024 and the owner had paid $100 in advance for 2025 levies not yet issued.
• [59] The body corporate is required to keep proper accounting records and prepare for each financial year a statement of accounts (on a cash or accrual basis) showing the income and spending, or receipts and payments, of the body corporate for the financial year.[4] The statement of accounts must include the corresponding figures for the previous financial year.[5]
• [60] The Statement of Accounts for the Year ending 31 December and Proposed Budget for 2025 contained 3 columns: Budget 2024, Actual 31/12/2024 and New Budget 2025. There were details for the administration fund (income and expenditure) and sinking fund (income and expenditure). Although the corresponding figures for 2023 were not included, those figures were made available to all owners in AGM correspondence (2023 figures were contained within motion 1 documents). Financial figures for years 2023 to 2025 that were voted on in motions 1 and 2 have been subsequently combined into one document.
• [61] I note that motions 1 and 2 were both carried with 9 votes in favour and 0 or 1 vote against, respectively. I do not consider the failure to include 2023's figures in the Statement of Accounts presented to owners before the AGM such a substantial failing as to warrant invalidating the AGM and requiring it to be re-held.

• [62] The applicant says the 2025 budgets for the administrative fund and the sinking fund were not approved by the committee before distribution to the body corporate members with the notice of the meeting.
• [63] In her 11 May 2025 reply to the applicant, the secretary/treasurer says The 2025 budgets for the Administrative Fund and the Sinking Fund were agreed by the committee prior to the AGM at the December 19, 2024 committee meeting. Motion 5 and Motion 6 was voted on and accepted at the AGM. I believe the concerns you have raised were not warranted as the subject matter was addressed correctly and in line with Regulations at the time. However, I will take them to the next committee meeting and ask the committee to decide if an Extraordinary General Meeting is warranted, on the off chance that I am incorrect or somehow biased.
• [64] The committee submits that 4 of the 6 members approved the AGM agenda; approval emails were received from Hannah Magometovs (23 January 2025), David Atkins (23 January 2025) and Jennie Bunt (24 January 2025). As the author of the documents, Leeann Clegg also approved them by default. Chairperson Susi Schefe was overseas in the lead-up to the AGM. During this time, Susi had intermittent communication with the rest of the committee members. Susi did not formally approve the agenda; however, she did provide her understanding of the path forward, and this was clearly laid out in an email sent on 12 February 2025.
• [65] The applicant is correct that there is no formal process for the committee to approve the AGM documents. In relation to the budgets, the legislation says the body corporate must, by ordinary resolution, adopt an administrative fund and sinking fund budget for each financial year.[6] It did this by motions 5 (Administration Fund Levy & Proposed 2025 Administration budget approval) and 6 (Sinking Fund Levy & Proposed 2025 Sinking Fund budget approval), both of which were carried with 10 votes in favour and nil against.
• [66] I find no contravention of the legislation regarding the body corporate's approval of its budgets. If any of the former committee members disagreed with the budgets proposed by the committee or the process to prepare them, they could have voted no to motions 5 and 6 and/or submitted an alternative budget in the form of a motion to be considered at an EGM. They did neither.

• [67] The applicant specifically asked in his email of 2 April 2025, that the following motion be put to the current committee:

That the Agenda and Statement of Accounts submitted to the Meeting of 15 February 2025 be

withdrawn and amended to comply with the Body Corporate and Community Management Act

1997 and the Standard Regulation Module and be submitted to the members of the committee

responsible for the documents at the time i.e. the previous committee, for approval. The amended

documents then be submitted to an extraordinary general meeting of the members of the Body

Corporate, called by the Secretary in terms of the Standard Regulation Module S. 82 (1), for resolution by those present at the general meeting.

• [68] In her reply of 11 May 2025, the secretary said she would take the applicant's concerns to the next committee meeting and ask the committee to decide if an EGM was warranted. The minutes of the committee meeting of 21 May 2025 record, relevantly, as follows:

2025 05 21 2 Review of documents from the 15th of February 2025 Annual General Meeting to ensure compliance was maintained.

Please find attached Letter re Invalid AGM-Signed 2 Apr 2025 & reply letter from Leeann Clegg

Motion based on the information presented and reviewed, the 2025 committee members

are satisfied that compliance was meet and maintained for the 15th February 2025 Annual

• [69] Ms Schefe submits that she has reviewed the applicant's motion of 2/4/2025 and his letter to the committee. It seems clear to her that he submitted a proper motion for committee decision and that it was not dealt with appropriately within the required timeframe.
• [70] The secretary's response appears to dismiss the motion without putting it to the committee for a vote, which she believes is unacceptable and inconsistent with the committee's obligations under the Act.
• [71] Ms Schefe also notes the applicant's observation that the minutes of the committee meeting of 21/5/2025 do not comply with section 71 of the Standard Module. She agrees that the minutes fail to accurately reflect the matters raised by the applicant and do not quote his motion verbatim or record it being properly decided.
• [72] An owner may submit a motion for consideration by the committee by giving the motion to the secretary.[7] The applicant did this by email on 2 April 2025.
• [73] Generally, committee motions must be decided as soon as reasonably practicable but within 6 weeks of being submitted.[8] If a committee needs more time, it can give the submitter a notice saying that and then decide the motion in no more than a further 6 weeks.[9] If a committee does not decide a motion in those timeframes, it is taken not to have agreed to the motion.[10]
• [74] The committee, in its meeting on 21 May 2025, clearly considered the applicant's 2 April 2025 correspondence and the secretary's reply of 11 May 2025 and passed the resolution referred to above. By failing to specifically vote on the applicant's specific motion, it is taken to be not agreed to.[11]
• [75] The notice calling a committee meeting must include an agenda stating the substance of issues to be considered at the meeting. This is different than for general meetings, for which a voting paper which includes each motion in the form it was submitted without amendment, must accompany the notice of meeting.[12]
• [76] I am satisfied that the committee considered the substance of the applicant's motion submitted by email on 2 April 2025 and resolved to pass an alternative motion. By virtue of section 58(7) of the Standard Module, the applicant's specific motion submitted on 2 April 2025 is taken not to have been agreed to. In my view, the applicant's specific motion was unlawful or unenforceable in any event, and the committee was therefore justified in not deciding it. It did not specify who was to amend the agenda and statement of accounts or how, for submission to the former committee for approval. In any event, former committee members have no decision-making authority, other than their right to vote at general meetings. Section 58(6)(b)(ii) of the Standard Module provides that the committee must not decide a motion if the motion, if carried, would be unlawful or unenforceable for another reason.

• [77] According to the minutes of the AGM neither the applicant, nor the 2 other owners making supporting submissions (all former committee members) attended. The applicant is stated to have withdrawn his vote, but the 2 supporting submitters are recorded as having voted. 10 of the 12 owners in the scheme voted. Every committee motion (except for motion 4 to appoint an auditor, which was not required to be voted on given the passing of motion 3 to not have the accounts audited), was carried, with 9 or 10 votes in favour and only 1, or none, against. Budgets were set, contributions fixed and arrangements for insurance confirmed. A committee was elected, and it has been administering the scheme and continues to meet regularly.
• [78] Whilst strict technical compliance with the legislation was not achieved in every respect for the AGM, the applicant has not demonstrated any material impact on any owner or any decision of, or action taken by, the body corporate. I am satisfied that the secretary/treasurer and other committee members present acted in good faith. The defects did not warrant the lodgement of this application.
• [79] I find the application frivolous and largely without substance. I have dismissed it. Where orders are simply sought to prove a point but will have no material impact on the parties or the operation of the body corporate and will not resolve a live issue, I do not consider orders are warranted.
• [80] The legislation establishes an expectation of self-management as an inherent aspect of community titles schemes. The fact that the business of the body corporate is not conducted in the way the applicant believes it should be does not justify orders being made against the body corporate. It is not appropriate for an adjudicator to intervene in the management of a body corporate unless there is a substantive legal basis to do so. It has been acknowledged in case law that the very detailed provisions of the body corporate regulations make non-compliance almost inevitable from time to time. It has been concluded that meetings and decisions should be preserved despite minor errors or irregularities, unless it can be shown that the body corporate has acted unreasonably or that owners have been disadvantaged. The Code of Conduct for committee members does not demand administrative perfection, but simply directs committee members to "take reasonable steps" to comply with the Act.
• [81] The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal has said:

The BCCMA is a lengthy, technical and complex instrument, with no fewer than six sets of subordinate and similarly complex "module regulations". It cannot be the case that the legislature expected all, or even most committee members of a body corporate, small, large or very large, to be experts in corporate law, or masters of community management. Indeed, the BCCMA implicitly recognises that, if this legislation were at all times, and in all circumstances applied with the utmost rigour and most precious attention to detail, its objects and policies would be retarded by endemic disputation, rather than advanced. The direction that a "body corporate must act reasonably" in the performance of its "general functions" does not suggest that every minor irregularity should be pounced on to impede or paralyse the normal conduct of business.[13]

• [82] The District Court has similarly commented that non-compliance of an insubstantial nature will not invalidate decisions taken in good faith.[14] Decisions should stand despite minor errors, omissions or other irregularities in the meeting procedures, unless it can be shown that there has been some fundamental disadvantage to owners.
• [83] I am unable on the material presented to me to conclude that any lot owner, including the applicant, was prejudiced or disadvantaged. In my view the secretary/treasurer did an admirable job of attempting to address the concerns raised by former committee members, with no help from them to do so.

• [84] In my perusal of the minutes of the committee meeting of 21 May 2025, I noticed that the committee passed a motion almost identical to existing by-law 17(a). The committee appears to be under the impression that that by-law may no longer be current and/or applicable.
• [85] Titles Office records show that the body corporate changed its by-laws in April 1994, including by replacing by-laws 8 and 11 of the Third Schedule by-laws in the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 with its own, and adding in a further 6 by-laws (including by-law 17 Tree Preservation). Those by-laws are still current and applicable.
• [86] General information on what by-laws apply can be found on our website.

[1] [2016] QCATA 47

[2] Weeks v Commissioner for Body Corporate, District Court Appeal 13/99, 20 September 1999, unreported

[3] As detailed in his letter of 2 April 2025 to the secretary

[4] Section 175(1) & (2), Standard Module

[7] Section 58(2), Standard Module

[8] Section 58(3)(a), Standard Module

[9] Section 58(3)(b), Standard Module

[10] Section 58(7), Standard Module

[11] Section 58(7)(a), Standard Module

[12] Section 88(6), Standard Module

[13] Carroll & Ors v Body Corporate for Palm Springs Residences CTS 29467 [2013] QCATA 21, paras 22-23

[14] Wei-Xin Chen v Body Corporate for Wishart Village CTS 19482, Appeal 4080 of 2000, District Court Brisbane, 29 May 2001 (Unreported)