//
austlii:qld/QBCCMCmr/2026/9
General information, not legal advice.
QBCCMCmr
2026-01-20
Original judgment source is linked above.
The Rise at 18 [2026] QBCCMCmr 9
The Body Corporate for The Rise at 18 (respondent)
Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), sections 227(1)(b) and 229(3)(a)
GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS / REASONABLENESS - where the applicant alleges the body corporate has acted unreasonably in deciding not to pass certain motions at a general meeting - whether the orders sought by the applicant are warranted in the circumstances.
[1] The Rise at 18 CTS 56227 is a 5-lot scheme situated in Auchenflower, Queensland. It is governed by the Standard Module. The applicant, Soonjung Lee, is the joint owner of Lot 2 in the scheme.
[2] The applicant is unhappy with the outcome of several motions put forward at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the body corporate held on 24 July 2025. They say the body corporate ought to have passed the various motions.
[3] Pursuant to their application, the applicant sought the following outcomes:
[4] The applicant initially sought to dispute motions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the EGM. However, they have since confirmed that in respect of order 1, they are only seeking an order that motions 3, 6 and 7 are deemed passed.[1] These motions set out as follows:
Motion 3. Defect Assessment Report Ordinary Resolution - Proposed by Committee
That the Body Corporate engages Building Experts Australia to carry out a defect assessment report for a cost that will not exceed $3,500.00 including GST and further that Strata Dynamics be authorised and instructed to engage the contractor on the Body Corporate's behalf.
[5] Motion 3 was defeated 2 votes in favour and 3 against.
Motion 6. Temporary Security Camera Ordinary Resolution - Proposed by Committee
That the Body Corporate approves use of temporary 1 x internal security camera on Level 2 inside the building until sufficient funds are available in the Sinking Fund for installation of permanent surveillance cameras within the building and display of a notice inside the building to notify the short-term accommodation guests on the basis of recent break-in incidence.
[6] Motion 6 was defeated 2 votes in favour and 3 against.
Motion 7. Garden Maintenance Ordinary Resolution - Proposed by Committee
That the Body Corporate approves Soonjung Lee, Susan Ottley and Jarrah Gibney to modify the flower beds, gardens, and lawns within the common property area to plant, decorate and mow until a common property gardener is assigned by the Committee.
[7] Motion 7 was defeated 2 votes in favour and 3 against.
[8] The applicant refers to the body corporate's duty to act reasonably when making decisions and says all the decisions made on the motions are unreasonable.
[9] I note the applicant bears the onus to establish that the orders they seek are warranted in the circumstances.
[10] The applicant lodged this application for adjudication on 18 August 2025. The commissioner sought clarification on some aspects of the application, and the application was amended.
[11] The commissioner invited submissions from the body corporate committee and all other owners in the scheme. The committee and 1 other owner in the scheme made submissions in response.
[12] The applicant inspected the submissions made in response but did not submit a reply.
[13] A dispute resolution recommendation was made referring the file to department adjudication.[2]
[14] Following the dispute being referred to department adjudication, the applicant contacted this office and asked whether the outcomes they had sought could be changed or added to.[3]
[15] A dispute resolution officer attempted to call the applicant back but was unable to reach them. They instead sent an email to the applicant explaining that once a dispute has been referred to an adjudicator, the outcomes sought in the application cannot be amended or added to.[4]
[16] No response was received from the applicant so a dispute resolution officer sent a further email to the applicant requesting they confirm whether they still required the orders sought in their application.[5]
[17] The applicant replied saying they no longer required an order in relation to motions 2, 4, and 5 of the EGM. However, they confirmed they were still seeking an order that motions 3, 6 and 7 of the EGM are deemed passed.[6]
[18] Accordingly, I have treated the order sought in respect of motions 2, 4, and 5 as withdrawn.[7]
[19] An adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances (including a declaratory order) to resolve a dispute, about (relevant to this dispute): a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the CMS, or about the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or the CMS.[8]
[20] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the legislative dispute resolution provisions.
[21] The applicant says a body corporate must act reasonably in making, or not making, a decision. They say all the votes cast against the motions put forward at the EGM were unreasonable.
[22] In respect of motion 3, the applicant says it is a legislative requirement that a defect assessment report is raised as a motion at a scheme's second annual general meeting (AGM). They say this was not done so it was raised as an agenda item at the EGM held on 24 July 2025. They say this also provides a basis on which to order that a defect assessment report is carried out (order 2 of their application).
[23] In respect of motion 6, the applicant says the owner of Lot 3 had their car broken into in late January 2025 and then the applicant had their car stolen on 4 February 2025 (I understand both while parked in the scheme's parking lot). In addition, an intruder was identified looking insider cars on 26 June 2025 (again in the parking lot). The applicant says temporary security cameras have been installed within the common property parking lot. They say given the security concerns, it would be reasonable to pass motion 6.
[24] In respect of motion 7, the applicant says there are currently no gardening contracts and the owners of Lot 2 and 3 have voluntarily been carrying out gardening work in the common property gardens. They argue this is the most cost-effective thing to do considering the small size of the garden. They say it is the body corporate's responsibility to ensure the common property gardens are managed properly. In addition, they say this also provides grounds to grant order 3 of their application.
[25] The committee says it opposes the applicant's application in its entirety and submits all the orders sought should be dismissed. It says the decisions made on the motions at the EGM were a reasonable exercise of owners' voting rights. It says the rejection of the motions was not an attempt to obstruct governance but were based on sound reasoning for each specific proposal.
[26] The committee says the body corporate, through its majority owner Ms Yue Cao (who owns Lots 1, 4 and 5 in the scheme), is proactively addressing the underlying issues of building defects and security at the scheme in a more effective and appropriate manner than what was proposed in the defeated motions.
[27] In relation to order 1, the committee says an adjudicator does not have the power to retroactively 'deem' that a defeated motion is passed. It says the blanket nature of requesting that all the motions be passed is improper and each motion must be considered on its own merits.
[28] In relation to order 2, the committee says this order is opposed on the basis that Ms Yue Cao has already applied for an independent defect assessment report together with making a formal complaint to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC). It says applying for another defect assessment report is unnecessary.
[29] In relation to order 3, the committee says the applicant has provided no grounds for their request. The committee submits that By-law 19.1 of the scheme's CMS is valid, reasonable and enforceable. The committee says the by-law does not delegate the body corporate's general duty to maintain common property but rather it allocates the maintenance obligation for a specific alteration to the owner who benefits from it. The committee says the by-law is not oppressive or unreasonable.
[30] The committee made further specific submissions about each of the motions challenged by the applicant. In relation to the motions the applicant still disputes, the committee says the following:
The committee says the applicant conflates the camera in the carpark with the camera placed on level 2. It says the temporary camera in the carpark was a justified and necessary response to a documented series of criminal acts including theft and malicious damage. However, the camera on level 2 was an unauthorised installation of a camera which lacked any specific security threat to justify its placement and it served only to monitor another resident's entryway.
The committee says that in any event, this motion is now somewhat redundant. It explains the body corporate is not opposed to CCTV overall and it is now actively sourcing a more comprehensive and effective CCTV solution which will be presented at a future general meeting.
[31] The committee says the applicant has failed to establish that the decisions the body corporate made in relation to the challenged motions were unreasonable. It says the evidence shows that the 'no' votes were a reasonable response to specific motions that were variously redundant, procedurally flawed, inadequate or factually incorrect.
[32] The committee says the body corporate is taking reasonable steps to address the substantive issues of defects and security at the scheme in a manner which is more robust and considered than the proposals put forward by the motions.
[33] The owner of Lot 3 made submissions in response. In relation to motion 3, they say it seems more reasonable for owners to go directly to QBCC than QBCC dealing with the body corporate. In relation to motion 6, they say approval has been given for 3 cameras downstairs to keep the property, including cars, safe. Finally, in relation to motion 7, the owner of Lot 3 says that with regards to garden maintenance, they are no longer able to participate in voluntary gardening due to a change in their circumstances.
[34] Pursuant to their application, the applicant has sought 3 orders. I will consider each of these in turn. I reiterate that the applicant bears the onus to establish that the orders they seek are warranted in the circumstances.
Order 1: That motions 3, 6 and 7 of the EGM are deemed to be passed
[35] Section 94(2) of the Act provides that a body corporate must act reasonably when carrying out its general functions including making, or not making, a decision. 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.[9] Ultimately, the question is not whether a decision was the 'correct' one, or whether a better one could have been made, rather it is about whether the decision was objectively reasonable.[10]
[36] The applicant alleges that the body corporate failed to act reasonably in coming to its decisions on the challenged motions. I will consider the particular facts around each motion in turn.
[37] Motion 3 of the EGM proposed that the Body Corporate engage Building Experts Australia to carry out a defect assessment report for a cost that will not exceed $3,500.00 including GST. The applicant says it is a legislative requirement that a defect assessment report is raised as a motion at a scheme's second AGM. They explain this was not done for their scheme so it was raised as a motion at the EGM.
[38] Section 181 of the Standard Module provides that a body corporate must include a defect assessment motion on the agenda for the next AGM of the body corporate that is called after the first AGM. I understand the intention of this provision is to assist the body corporate to identify any defective building works in a timely manner.
[39] However, it does not follow that owners are required to pass the motion about obtaining a defect assessment report. The legislation does not make it mandatory that owners do so. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to obtain a defect assessment report is up to the body corporate.
[40] The applicant submits it was unreasonable for the owners of The Rise at 18 not to have passed the motion to obtain a defect assessment report. However, they have provided no cogent reasons for why it was unreasonable other than saying it is a legislative requirement. In light of the above, the applicant has failed to persuade me that the body corporate has acted unreasonably in deciding not to pass motion 3.
[41] In any event, the committee says an independent defect assessment had already been sought before motion 3 was put up at the EGM and a complaint has been submitted to QBCC about the alleged defects affecting common property. I note the committee has provided evidence that a complaint has been submitted to QBCC but not what the complaint is about. However, on balance, it seems steps are being taken to rectify any defects affecting common property at the scheme.
[42] Motion 6 of the EGM proposed that the body corporate approve the use of a temporary internal security camera on level 2 inside the building until permanent surveillance cameras can be installed in the building.
[43] The applicant cites security concerns as the reason for requiring cameras inside the scheme building. They note various incidences in the scheme's carpark and say temporary cameras have been installed on common property in the carpark to help with security. They say it was unreasonable for the body corporate not to pass the motion for installing a camera on level 2.
[44] The committee says an unauthorised camera has already been installed on level 2 without approval. It says this camera has been placed in a position which monitors the entryway of another resident's door. It says this raised serious concerns about nuisance and breach of privacy.
[45] The committee says the applicant is conflating the camera in the carpark with the camera placed on level 2. It says the temporary camera in the carpark was a justified and necessary response to a documented series of criminal acts including theft and malicious damage in the scheme's carpark. However, the camera on level 2 was an unauthorised installation which lacked any specific security threat.
[46] The committee says that in any event, this motion is now somewhat redundant. It explains the body corporate is not opposed to CCTV overall and it is now actively sourcing a more comprehensive and effective CCTV solution which will be presented at a future general meeting.
[47] I note it is not my role as an adjudicator to determine whether or not a body corporate has made the 'right' decision on a motion. As I set out above, the question is not whether a decision was the 'correct' one, or whether a better one could have been made, rather it is about whether the decision was objectively reasonable.[11] It is not uncommon for owners to disagree on a certain course of action however, it is open to a body corporate to make its own assessment on the decisions it wants to make, provided it acts reasonably.
[48] The applicant is clearly unhappy with the body corporate's decision not to authorise a temporary camera on level 2. They consider it is required for security reasons. However, all the examples they have provided of the incidences which have occurred at the scheme have taken place in the carpark. From the materials they have submitted, it is unclear why the applicant considers it is unreasonable for the body corporate to have declined to authorise a camera on level 2.
[49] The onus is on the applicant to show that the body corporate has acted unreasonably in coming to its decision. They have failed to persuade me that the body corporate acted unreasonably in declining to pass motion 6.
[50] Motion 7 of the EGM sought approval for 3 named owners to modify common property flower beds, gardens and lawns.[12] I understand this was put forward as a cost effective option to maintain the common property gardens as the scheme does not currently have a service contractor to carry out this work. The applicant says the body corporate has a duty to maintain the common property gardens and it was unreasonable not to pass motion 7.
[51] The committee does not dispute that the body corporate is responsible for maintaining the common property gardens. It says the majority of owners now concur that the body corporate should engage professional maintenance services to undertake this task. In any event, the committee says an order compelling passage of the motion would be nonsensical given one of the owners set out in the motion has had a change of circumstances and is no longer able to help with maintenance of the gardens.
[52] The applicant is clearly unhappy this motion was not passed however, they have provided no cogent reasons for why they consider the body corporate has acted objectively unreasonably in deciding not to pass the motion. The applicant says this is the most cost-effective option considering how small the common property gardens are. However, this is not a basis for me to invalidate the body corporate's decision. It is open to a body corporate to make its own assessment on how it wants to approach necessary maintenance at the scheme.[13]
[53] The applicant has failed to establish that the body corporate has acted unreasonably in making the decision not to pass motion 7.
Order 2: That the body corporate obtain a defect assessment report within 28 days
[54] The applicant says it is a legislative requirement to obtain a defect assessment report. They say this provides a basis on which to order that a defect assessment report be carried out. However, for the reasons provided at paragraphs [43] to [45] above, I decline to make the second order sought by the applicant.
Order 3: That by-law 19 is invalidated and a new CMS lodged removing the by-law
[55] The CMS for The Rise at 18[14] provides the following at By-law 19:
19. MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY OF ALTERATIONS TO COMMON PROPERTY
19.1 Any alteration made to Common Property or fixture or fitting attached to Common Property by an owner of a Lot, whether made or attached with or without the approval of the Body Corporate Committee, shall, unless otherwise provided by resolution of general meeting or of a meeting of the Committee, be repaired and maintained by the owner for the time being of the Lot.
[56] The applicant says By-law 19 is attempting to delegate the body corporate's duty to maintain common property and is instead allocating the maintenance obligations to the specific owner who benefits from it. They argue that the by-law is invalid and should be removed from the scheme's CMS.
[57] The committee submits that By-law 19.1 is valid, reasonable and enforceable. The committee says the by-law does not delegate the body corporate's general duty to maintain common property but rather it allocates the maintenance obligation for a specific alteration to the owner who benefits from it. The committee says the by-law is not oppressive or unreasonable.
[58] Section 152 of the Act sets out a body corporate's duties about common property. It provides that the body corporate must administer, manage and control the common property reasonably and for the benefit of lot owners; and comply with the obligations with regard to common property imposed under the regulation module applying to the scheme.
[59] As set out above, The Rise at 18 is governed by the Standard Module. Section 180(1) of the Standard Module provides that the body corporate must maintain common property in good and structurally sound condition.
[60] Section 187 of the Standard Module deals with improvements to common property by an owner of a lot. The body corporate may, if asked by the owner of a lot, authorise the owner to make an improvement to the common property for the benefit of the lot.[15] An authorisation may be given on conditions the body corporate considers appropriate.[16] An owner who is given authority under this section: (a) must comply with the conditions of the authority and; (b) must maintain the improvement made under the authority in good condition, unless excused by the body corporate.[17]
[61] It is clear that a body corporate has a statutory duty to maintain common property. However, when it comes to improvements to common property made by an owner, the owner will generally be responsible for maintaining that improvement in good condition, unless excused by the body corporate.
[62] Having reviewed the wording of By-law 19, I am satisfied it has been drafted to accord with the relevant legislation in relation to improvements made by owners. That is, it requires that any alterations made to common property by an owner must be maintained by the owner unless alternative arrangements are provided for by the body corporate.
[63] The applicant has failed to persuade me that By-law 19 should be invalidated and removed from the CMS.
[64] For the reasons provided above, I have dismissed the applicant's request for orders.
[1] Email from applicant dated 7 January 2025.
[2] Section 248(3)(e) of the Act
[3] Phone call received 11 December 2025.
[7] Pursuant to section 245(4) of the Act
[8] Section 276(1)(a) and (b) of the Act
[9] 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).
[10] Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1997] FCA 1311
[12] Though not explicitly referred to by the applicant, I note the CMS for The Rise at 18 contains a by-law which provides that an owner or occupier must not, without the body corporate's approval, damage a lawn, garden, tree, shrub, plant or flower on common property (see By-law 5: Damage to Lawns etc).
[13] I note that from the materials before me, there is no indication that the common property gardens have fallen into a poor condition.
[14] CMS executed on 4 June 2024, reference number: 723303001
[15] Section 187(1) of the Standard Module
[16] Section 187(3) of the Standard Module
[17] Section 187(4) of the Standard Module