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

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

INTERIM ORDER - whether an interim order is warranted.

1. Pending a final determination on this application, the Body Corporate for Thirty Four Riverwalk must not enter Lot 13, or authorise any person to enter Lot 13 on its behalf, for the purpose of removing any glass panels or associated tracks.
2. 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the date of this order, a further interim or final order for the application is issued, or until the application is withdrawn or otherwise ended (whichever is earlier).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] This application is about a glass enclosure on the balcony of the applicants' Lot 13 and the body corporate's proposed entry to the lot to remove it.
• [2] In October 2016 the committee resolved to retrospectively approve glass balcony enclosures on 4 lots, including Lot 13. On 19 March 2025 the committee rescinded those approvals.
• [3] In May 2024 the body corporate advised the applicants that Axis Building Certifiers (Axis) had raised fire safety concerns with the glass sliding doors. It later advised the Gold Coast City Council (GCCC). In September 2024 the GCCC issued a notice to the applicants requiring them to show cause why an enforcement notice should not be issued about the enclosure of the balcony without development approval. The applicants explored solutions and recently removed 6 of the 14 glass panels. They believe that may satisfy the show cause notice. They say GCCC inspected the lot on 4 April 2025, and they expect an outcome within 30 days.
• [4] On 25 March 2025the body corporate gave the applicants notice of entry to Lot 13 by a contractor at 7am on 14 April 2025 to remove and dispose of the glass panels and associated tracks. The applicants dispute the entry while the GCCC is still completing its investigations.
• [5] The applicants seek orders to prevent the body corporate removing the remaining glass panels and tracks until the GCCC advised whether the remaining panels and tracks are compliant. If the GCCC requires further action, they seek a reasonable time to complete it. They also seek orders that the body corporate obtain a fire engineer's report if required by the GCCC; that the body corporate pay for any necessary rectification works due to its negligence in approving the enclosures in 2016; and to invalidate the decision to rescind the 2016 approvals.
• [6] In the interim, the applicants seek to restrain the body corporate from entering Lot 13 pursuant to the entry notice. At this time, I will consider whether interim orders are warranted.

• [7] Thirty Four Riverwalk community titles scheme 34520 (Thirty Four Riverwalk) is a 22-lot scheme at Robina. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Accommodation Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plan 165606.
• [8] This application seeks an interim order:

That the body corporate be restrained from proceeding to enter Lot 13 on 14 April 2025, under the Section 163 Notice that it has purported to issue and that the body corporate be further restrained from issuing any further Section 163 Notice until such time as there is a final outcome as set out in Section 7.

• [9] The application then seeks the following final orders:
  1. That the Body Corporate be restrained from entering Lot 13 to remove the remaining glass panels and aluminium tracks until such time as the GCCC has completed their re-inspection of Lot 13 and have issued their written advice as to whether or not the remaining glass panels and tracks are now compliant and therefore the Show Cause Notice will be withdrawn as suggested in the email from GCCC dated 3 March, 2025 (marked "J") or alternatively, if the GCCC requires further action taken to make the works compliant, that a reasonable time is allowed for such works to be completed.
  2. If required by GCCC that the body corporate obtain at its expense a fire engineer's report as originally recommended by Axis Building Certifiers who were engaged by the body corporate.
  3. Given the negligence of the body corporate in retrospectively approving unanimously the glass panels and tracks at a meeting on 13 October 2016 without ensuring that the works had been properly approved as required by law, and before we became the current registered owners, that the body corporate pay all costs and expenses in relation to any necessary rectification works.
  4. That the purposed recission motion of the body corporate contained at item 7.13 of the committee minutes dated 19 March 2025 (marked "O") and received by email from Archers Body Corporate Management at 7.34am on Friday 4 April 2025 be declared invalid.

• [10] An adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances to resolve a dispute about a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the CMS, or the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or the CMS.[1] Notably, an adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied on reasonable grounds it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[2] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to decide this matter.[3]

• [11] This application was lodged on 1 April 2025. The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification on some aspects of the application,[4] which was subsequently amended.[5]
• [12] As permitted under the Act, the Commissioner referred this application to me to decide whether the nature or urgency of the circumstances warrants an interim order,[6] notwithstanding that notice of the application has not yet been given to the respondent or owners.
• [13] There is no statutory requirement to obtain comment before an interim order is decided. But in the circumstances, I gave the committee a limited opportunity to make a submission. It did so.

• [14] The body corporate's submission details some background to the dispute.
• [15] It says its primary concern has been the need to address the special condition placed on Lot 13 by the scheme's insurer. It says the owners of 2 of the affected lots removed the glass enclosures, and a third lot owner has satisfied the GCCC show cause notice and the insurer's special condition. It says the applicants' enclosure is the only remaining non-compliant installation and is the only lot that has not addressed the condition.
• [16] The body corporate says the applicants have had almost 12 months to address the issue. It says it has made numerous attempts to engage with the applicants to discuss the matter, and the applicants' lack of communication led it to engage a lawyer. It says the applicants did not satisfy its requests. It objects to the lack of information provided by the applicants and the manner of the applicants' communication.
• [17] It says it has no view on what option the applicants take to rectify the doors. It only requires urgent notification that the enclosures have been made compliant.
• [18] It believes 6 of 14 panels were removed. It now requires copies of building approval and certification for the enclosure. It says it must advise its insurer when the doors are finally determined to be compliant by 11 June 2025. If not, it says its building insurance will be jeopardised. It says it cannot wait indefinitely for a GCCC decision.
• [19] The body corporate says the removal of the panels by its contractor is not its preferred way of resolving this issue but has become the only option given the lack of communication and consultation by the applicants and the pending deadline set by the insurer.
• [20] The body corporate also noted that it did not install the doors and was not provided with building approval documents. It says any negligence rests with the original owners of Lot 13, one of whom was present when the committee in October 2016 considered approving the enclosures were installed 1-2 years earlier.

• [21] The only issue at this time is whether an interim order is warranted. However, it is necessary to consider the substantive issues in dispute to decide whether to make an interim order.

• [22] Any order granted must be just and equitable.[7] An interim order will not be granted unless it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[8] An adjudicator must be satisfied an application raises serious legal questions and that the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. That is, an adjudicator must 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. Of particular relevance is evidence an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm.

• [23] In considering the legal issues in dispute, I will first note the history of the matter. I will then consider the applicants' objection to the proposed removal of the glass panels and tracks from Lot 13 and the issues arising in regard to the other final orders sought.

• [24] I am unclear when the glass balcony enclosures were installed on 4 lots, but it was apparently prior to October 2016 when the committee retrospectively approved them. The applicants did not become the registered owners of Lot 13 until December 2021.
• [25] In May 2024 the body corporate engaged a building certifier to inspect the balcony enclosures on the 4 lots, apparently after an issue in one lot and it becoming aware that the enclosures did not have building approval.
• [26] Axis reviewed the compliance of the 4 balconies. It said the glass sliding doors compromised the existing horizontal protection needed to meet building code requirements. It said the vertical separation of the lots was affected and did not comply with the building code provisions. It said this was a fire safety issue. It indicated options to address the issue and said the glass doors should be removed if the options were not suitable. It further said the door tracks were installed partly over a drainage outlet and required further review from a hydraulic engineer to ensure they did not impact the building's stormwater drainage system.
• [27] The body corporate advised the affected owners of an intention to engage a fire safety engineer recommended by Axis. It subsequently informed the owners that a fire safety engineer (Warringtonfire) verbally advised that they concurred with the Axis findings.
• [28] In June 2024 the body corporate gave the affected owners the Axis report, advised it was awaiting Warringtonfire quotes, and said the GCCC was undertaking its own review. The body corporate says Warringtonfire advised that remedial works would exceed $100,000 and/or be structurally difficult to attain. It says the cost of obtaining a written report was not justified.
• [29] It July 2024 the body corporate told the affected owners that it had advised its insurers of the non-compliant doors.
• [30] On 10 September 2024 the body corporate's insurers offered an insurance renewal. The offer included a condition that the body corporate complete an item in the Axis report at least 8 weeks before the next renewal (on 6 August 2025). That item was a quoted paragraph from the Axis report referring to the options to address the fire safety issue or remove the glass doors if the options were not suitable. The renewal offer said until the works were undertaken, the items were considered a known defect and defective items were excluded from cover.
• [31] On 11 September 2024 the committee resolved to liaise with the owners and the GCCC about the doors and 'affect owner agreements to remove the doors as a matter of urgency'.
• [32] Following an inspection in August 2024, on 27 September 2024 the GCCC issued a show cause notice to the applicants. It required the applicants to show cause why an enforcement notice should not be issued to them with regard to glass panels and sliding doors which enclosed the balcony without development approval. The applicants say the timeframe in the show cause notice (originally in November 2024) was extended by the GCCC.
• [33] The body corporate says the GCCC has not informed it of the status of its investigations and none of the owners provided the show cause notices to it.
• [34] On 21 October 2024 the body corporate wrote to the applicants saying it understood the sliding doors had been assessed by the GCCC as non-compliant. It asked to meet with the applicants about returning the balcony to a condition that would meet building compliance requirements.
• [35] The applicants responded saying they were working with a fire engineer and building certifier on a solution that would enable the glass doors to remain as they were or with some panels removed, to satisfy the building requirements. They believed that could be achieved within the GCCC requirements, so they said planning to totally remove the doors was premature.
• [36] The body corporate then said the issue was its insurance coverage and the potential risks of the doors. It said now it was aware of the non-compliance, it had to act urgently.
• [37] Further correspondence ensued, including about the applicants' pursuit of technical advice and solutions and their concerns about the body corporate's original approval of the enclosures.
• [38] The body corporate wrote to the applicants on 19 November 2024 asserting they had failed to agree to remove the doors or make them compliant. It said Axis had advised the glass doors were non-compliant and had to be removed. It said the body corporate was exposed to risk while the doors were in place, and referred to the exclusion on its insurance policy for any claim involving the doors. It sought confirmation of when the work would be carried out.
• [39] On 8 January 2025 the body corporate wrote to the applicants asking for an urgent update on the certification of the doors and any remedies, and copies of extensions to the show cause notice. It said if that was not provided, it would issue a formal notice to remove the doors.
• [40] On 6 February 2025 the body corporate said the applicants had not provided evidence of any GCCC extension regarding the show cause notice, or evidence of any satisfactory compliance option for the doors, and had not removed the doors. It said the doors had to be removed. It gave notice of entry on 20 February 2025 to remove the doors.
• [41] Advice to the applicants from a building certifier on 11 February 2025 provided 3 options to address the show cause notice, being removal, partial removal, and retention with a development application for GCCC approval (with an engineering report prepared in consultation with the Queensland Fire Department). The applicants advised the GCCC of this, said they were favouring the partial removal option, and said they were removing 6 of the 14 panels that week so the balcony would be permanently open on 3 sides.
• [42] The applicants explained this to the body corporate on 14 February 2025 and asserted the entry on 20 February was no longer necessary. They also detailed the reasons for delays in the matter. The communication referred to the removal of 8 panels, but the applicants later advised that was an error and corrected it to 6 panels.
• [43] On 18 February 2025 the body corporate said it would hold off on accessing Lot 13 until 11 March subject to the work to remove the panels being completed on 19 February, written confirmation of the removal of the GCCC notices, and the provision of a certificate of compliance that the relevant fire risk relating to the doors was satisfied as a non-risk.
• [44] A GCCC building compliance officer told the applicants on 3 March 2025 that if the glass panel was removed, the show cause notice would be satisfied, and the non-compliance notification would be lifted. A GCCC inspection was scheduled for 13 March but then rescheduled by the GCCC officer due to Cyclone Alfred. The applicants say this inspection occurred on 4 April and they were told they would receive advice from the GCCC certifier within 30 days.
• [45] The applicants asked the body corporate not to take further action pending the outcome of the GCCC inspection. They confirmed 6 panels had been removed, the tracks did not impede the balcony drainage, and the GCCC had not issued a notice requiring any work to be carried out.
• [46] On 19 March 2025 the committee resolved to issue an entry notice and 'make arrangements to remove the non-compliant door'. It also resolved to rescind the October 2016 approvals and considered other matters relating to the other affected lots.
• [47] On 25 March 2025 the body corporate gave the applicants notice of entry by 'All Glass Gold Coast' on 14 April 2025 to remove and dispose of the glass panels and associated tracks. The notice said the body corporate required confirmation that the GCCC notice had been withdrawn and a certificate of compliance regarding the fire risk, but neither had been met.
• [48] The applicants objected to the entry notice saying that until there was a determination by the GCCC there was no legal basis for action by the body corporate. They sought a withdrawal of the entry notice until the GCCC decision. The body corporate responded that it was still waiting for a certifier's report deeming the doors as no longer a fire risk and saying the doors would be removed as planned until that certification was provided to the body corporate.

• [49] The applicants seek to restrain the body corporate from entering Lot 13 to remove the remaining glass panels and associated tracks until the GCCC has completed its investigations and, as they apparently believe will occur, withdrawn the show cause notice. Alternatively, if the GCCC requires further works, they seek further time to undertake that work.
• [50] That gives rise to issues of the validity of the entry notice and the body corporate's right to undertake work to remove the remaining glass panels and tracks.
• [51] Section 163 of the Act provides a body corporate with a right of entry to a lot or an exclusive use area, by persons authorised by the body corporate, for the purpose of inspecting the need for or undertaking work that the body corporate is required or authorised to undertake.
• [52] Except in an emergency, notice of intended entry to a lot must be given to the owner, or to the occupier of a lot if the owner is not in occupation of the lot. Entry must be 'at a reasonable time' after at least 7 days written notice of the intended entry is given. The power of entry only allows the authorised persons to enter and remain on the property while reasonably necessary to carry out the inspection or works.
• [53] The power of entry is a statutory right that does not need an adjudicator's order to be effected. An affected owner or occupier is not required to consent to the entry or entry arrangements. It is an offense to obstruct entry that is exercised pursuant to a valid entry notice. But a body corporate must act reasonably when exercising its power of entry.[9]
• [54] The applicants do not contest the committee decision to issue the entry notice, or that notice of the entry was validly given to them. However, they essentially question the current need for the work the body corporate seeks to undertake.
• [55] A body corporate can only enter a lot to undertake work that it is 'required or authorised to undertake'. I consider there is a genuine question to determine here as to whether the body corporate is actually required or authorised to remove the remaining panels and tracks.
• [56] The body corporate's correspondence says the glass panels must be removed. From my preliminary review of the submitted material, that position may be premature.
• [57] Neither the body corporate nor the owners of Lot 13 are in receipt of a statutory notice from the GCCC or any other relevant authority requiring the removal of the glass panels or tracks from the balcony of Lot 13. If the applicants received an order or notice to that effect (such as an enforcement notice from the GCCC) and failed to act in compliance with it, the legislation would empower the body corporate to resolve to undertake that work and recover the reasonable cost from the applicants as a debt.[10] However, as yet there is no notice or order.
• [58] The show cause notice is not a determination that the panels are not compliant, nor a direction that they must be removed. Rather it is a step in a compliance process. It is an invitation to the applicants to show why the GCCC should not require the panels to be removed because they were not the subject of a development approval. Where the show cause notice does not yet require the applicants to remove the panels, it cannot be relied on by the body corporate as authority for it to undertake the work for the owners.
• [59] The May 2024 advice from Axis, which only says the enclosure should be removed if other options could not be achieved, is not a statutory notice or order. While the body corporate clearly should have regard to that advice, the advice does not of itself authorise the body corporate to remove the enclosure. Moreover, subsequent communications from Axis seem to indicate that the partial removal of panels may address the concerns that it raised.
• [60] Potentially, the body corporate would also be empowered to resolve undertake work to remove the panels and tracks if the applicants had failed to remove the panels and tracks in accordance with an obligation they have to do so under the Act, the regulations, or the CMS.
• [61] For example, if the existence of the panels and tracks meant Lot 13 was not being maintained in good condition, the body corporate could seek to undertake work to ensure the lot was in good condition. But arguably the body corporate could only reasonably do so if it notified the applicants that it believed the lot was not in good condition and required rectification. To date, the body corporate does not appear to have asserted that Lot 13 is not in good condition.
• [62] Alternatively, if the body corporate has validly rescinded the approval for the glass balcony enclosure, the body corporate could seek the complete removal of the enclosure on the basis that it is now unapproved and so may breach by-laws that requires such alterations to a lot to be approved. The obligation would rest with the owner in the first instance to remove any unapproved improvements. But where the body corporate only rescinded its approval on 19 March (and the applicants were not notified of that until 4 April), it cannot rationally be said that the notice of entry authorised on 19 March was issued because the applicants had failed to remove an unapproved improvement to their lot.
• [63] Furthermore, while the body corporate clearly resolved to issue the entry notice, I have not been provided with any evidence that the body corporate has specifically resolved to engage the contractors (All Glass Gold Coast) named in the entry notice, or the associated cost of those contractors, or resolved to undertake work on Lot 13 to remove the panels and tracks.
• [64] Also, unless the removal of the panels was something the applicants had an obligation to do (under the legislation or by-laws or a statutory notice or order), and they had failed to comply with that obligation, it is not clear what statutory power the body corporate would have to resolve to undertake work on a lot.
• [65] Accordingly, at this time I consider there is a question about whether the body corporate is required or authorised to remove the panels and tracks such that it has a right to enter Lot 13 to undertake that work.

• [66] The applicants seek a final order that the body corporate obtain a report from a fire engineer if required by the GCCC. The grounds to the application do not set out the basis for the order.
• [67] The committee indicated an intention in May 2024 to engage a fire safety engineer. While it seems the committee planned to engage a fire safety engineer recommended by Axis, the applicants have not provided evidence that Axis actually recommended the body corporate obtain such an assessment. That is not stated in the report from Axis. And as yet there is no suggestion that the GCCC has or will require a report from a fire engineer.
• [68] While it may have been open to the body corporate to engage a fire safety engineer, and it could still choose to do so, the applicants have not yet argued or substantiated that the body corporate has a statutory obligation to obtain such a report. At this stage, the applicants have not identified a legal issue to be determined on this point.

• [69] Next, the applicants seek a final order that the body corporate pay all costs and expenses in relation to any necessary rectification works. They assert the body corporate was negligent in retrospectively approving the glass panels and tracks in October 2016 without ensuring the work was properly approved. Again, the grounds to the application do not explain or substantiate the basis for this order to be made.
• [70] The reference in the October 2016 motion to 'retrospective approval' indicates the balcony enclosures were already in existence at that time. That suggests former owners of Lot 13 installed the balcony enclosure without prior body corporate approval. Under the current by-laws an owner requires body corporate approval for most improvements to their lot and for changes to the external appearance of their lots.[11] It appears the requirement for body corporate approval for such changes has been long standing. As such, it seems the balcony enclosures may initially have been installed in breach of the by-laws.
• [71] A body corporate must act reasonably in making a decision,[12] including a decision to grant approval under the by-laws. But owners are responsible for their lots and for maintaining them in good condition. Owners are responsible for any improvements to their lot. Arguably the prima facie obligation rests with an owner, rather than the body corporate, to ensure that any alterations they choose to make to their lot are compliant and have all requisite approvals. At this stage, the applicants have not established that the body corporate acted in breach of its statutory obligations by approving enclosures that owners had already installed. Moreover, any application to invalidate the October 2016 resolution would be out of time.[13]
• [72] Furthermore, even if the body corporate acted negligently or in breach of its obligations in October 2016, the applicants have not established that an adjudicator would have the power to require the body corporate to pay for rectification works or to compensate the applicants for the cost of rectification works to Lot 13. The statutory powers of an adjudicator to award costs and compensation are limited.[14] It is not immediately clear how they would apply in this case.

• [73] Finally, the applicants seek an order to invalidate the committee's resolution 7.13 on 19 March 2025 to rescind the retrospective approvals that were given in October 2016.
• [74] The applicants received notice of that resolution on 4 April 2025. They say the meeting agenda referred generally to the 'recission of previous motions', but they were not notified that a motion affecting them was to be rescinded. They say they were not previously on notice of a memo from the treasurer (dated 17 March) in support of the motion. Because they were not on notice of the motion, the applicants say they were denied natural justice or the right to lodge a dispute resolution or make submissions about it.
• [75] There are general requirements for a committee to notify owners of committee meetings and decisions.[15] However, the legislation expressly says a committee can decide things that are not on the agenda.[16] Moreover, there is no statutory requirement for committee to specifically notify an owner of a motion affecting them or to invite comment on before a motion is decided.
• [76] Accordingly, at this stage the applicants have not satisfied me that there is a genuine issue that the motion to rescind the October 2016 approvals was invalid because they were not notified of the motion beforehand or given an opportunity to address it.
• [77] Furthermore, it seems somewhat incongruous for the applicants to assert that the committee was negligent for retrospectively approving the glass enclosures in October 2016 without ensuring the work was properly approved, but then objecting to it rescinding those approvals when it is appears the work was not properly approved by the GCCC, and no such approval has subsequently been obtained.
• [78] Also, where the applicants have removed 6 of the 14 panels that were originally installed, it is arguable that the 2016 approval is no longer relevant to what is currently installed.

• [79] The applicants seek an interim order to restrain the body corporate from entering their lot and removing the remaining panels and tracks. That is scheduled to occur on 14 April 2025. If the interim order is not made, the body corporate will incur the expense of the removal works. The applicants will (at least temporarily) lose the benefit of remaining panels and tracks and would incur the cost and inconvenience to reinstate them if they were subsequently permitted to do so. Moreover, unless the applicants are present on 14 April and are able to store the panels offsite, the body corporate says it plans to permanently dispose of the panels.
• [80] The panels have been in existence since at least 2016, with the body corporate's knowledge and (until very recently) approval. The body corporate has known of the compliance issue since May 2024.
• [81] The body corporate has concerns about the safety and insurance implications of the panels. That is understandable and appropriate. The body corporate has a deadline of 11 June 2025 to notify its insurer that the Lot 13 balcony has been rectified. But where a GCCC decision is expected by early May, it is not clear why the panels must be removed before then. The body corporate refers to a condition in its insurance that incidents arising from the applicants' balcony enclosure will not be covered. But it has not suggested that condition has changed since September 2024 or that the existence of that condition creates current urgency.
• [82] The GCCC did not issue a show cause notice until September 2024 and did not re-inspect the lot until 4 April 2025. That does not suggest the GCCC views this as an urgent matter. Moreover, the show cause notice appears to be based on the failure to obtain approval for the enclosure which increased the floor area of the lot, rather than any safety issue.
• [83] The issues raised by Axis are separate to the development approval issue. But subsequent communications from Axis and another building certifier suggest that the removal of some of the panels may address the safety issues.
• [84] The body corporate has sought compliance certification relating to the fire safety issue. While it is understandable that the body corporate would like that information, it is not immediately clear that the committee has resolved to require such information or its the basis for it to require the applicants to provide it. Also, while I acknowledge the legitimate concerns of the body corporate, this may be premature. It may be unreasonable for the body corporate to expect the applicants to obtain certification of the fire safety compliance of the current panels until it is known whether the GCCC has any ongoing objection to remaining panels. If the GCCC issues an enforcement notice requiring the removal of all panels, certification would be otiose. If the GCCC requires more panels to be removed, or other alterations, it would seem pointless to put the applicants to the expense and inconvenience of obtaining certification until such changes are made.
• [85] Also, if the body corporate has validly resolved to rescind the approval for the balcony enclosure, the enclosure (or such of it that remains) would appear to be unapproved. However, if the GCCC show cause notice is resolved, it would be open to the applicants to apply for approval under the by-laws for the improvement to the lot constituting the remaining panels and tracks. Where the original approval has only just been rescinded, and given the circumstances, arguably a reasonable committee would give the applicants adequate time to do so after the GCCC matter is finalised. The body corporate would need to act reasonably in considering any such request. The provision of evidence of fire safety compliance could be a reasonable condition of approval of any remaining panels. But it would arguably be unreasonable for the committee to require the applicants to obtain certification if is not going to consider the remaining improvement and is going to insist on its permanent removal.

• [86] I am satisfied that the applicants have raised a genuine question about the capacity of the body corporate to enter Lot 13 and remove the glass panels and tracks. Moreover, given the circumstances, I consider an interim order is warranted to restrain the body corporate from doing so until the substantive dispute is resolved.
• [87] Notwithstanding this order, the applicants must be cognisant of the deadline of 11 June 2025 for the body corporate to notify its insurers that the issues raised by Axis have been remedied. The applicants should ensure they act to resolve the status of their balcony as soon as possible and well before that date and communicate fully and promptly with the body corporate about it.
• [88] The parties should note section 279(2) of the Act regarding the term and effect of an interim order. This interim order will have effect for a period of up to twelve months. The interim order will not automatically be renewed, and it will be up to the applicants to request an extension of the order if this application is not otherwise resolved within twelve months. The order will lapse if the application is withdrawn or otherwise ended.
• [89] If the owners of Lot 13 are directed to remove the remaining panels by a statutory notice or order (including an enforcement notice from the GCCC or an adjudicator's order made in respect of another application), but fail to comply, or the body corporate is directed to by a statutory notice or order to remove the panels, the body corporate could request a variation or withdrawal of the interim order.
• [90] I will refer the application back to the Commissioner to progress under the Act.
• [91] In the first instance, it may be the parties await the outcome of the GCCC inspection. Depending on the GCCC findings, the applicants may wish to review the application. I would make the observation it appears to me that there appears to have been miscommunication and communication failures on both sides of this dispute. I encourage the parties to put that past aside and work constructively to resolve the matter promptly. If the matter is not otherwise resolved, I propose recommending the Commissioner this application be referred to conciliation to see if the parties could reach an agreement on how to progress any ongoing concerns. That could include considering any application for approval of the remaining panels and the provision of any appropriate safety certification.

[3] See sections 227, 228, 276 and Schedule 5 of the Act

[9] Noting sections 94(2) and 100(5) of the Act

[10] Section 202 of the Accommodation Module

[11] By-laws 19 and 20 in the CMS recorded on 10 January 2025, Titles dealing number 723797705

[12] Section 94(2) and 100(5) of the Act

[14] For example, sections 280, 281 and 270(3) of the Act

[15] Sections 47, 49 and 63 of the Accommodation Module

[16] Section 49(2) of the Accommodation Module