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

MAINTENANCE - whether the body corporate must correct subsidence in an exclusive use area caused by insufficient backfilling during construction and subsequent settlement; whether a resolution to fill a void on common property beneath a lot is invalid.

Act, ss 177(1), 280; Standard Module, ss 173, 192(2).

1. Motion 10 of the annual general meeting held on 30 July 2025 was at all times void.
2. The application is otherwise dismissed.

[1] As set out in the interim order,[1] Ms Steel's lot 6 and surrounding exclusive use courtyard have suffered significant subsidence, causing:

1. a drop of some 200mm from the lot balcony to the courtyard ground level
2. the courtyard to slope back toward the building rather than fall away from it
3. drainage inspection pipes to protrude above ground level in the courtyard
4. damage to plumbing and electrical infrastructure, and
5. a void beneath the balcony.

[2] Ms Steel holds the body corporate responsible for rectifying these defects and seeks orders in the following terms:

1. The lot owner is seeking that the body corporate undertake maintenance, and repair works within the exclusive use area to rectify damage caused by a broken roof and stormwater drainage issues around the balcony and building edges. Upon completion of the body corporate works, the lot owner also requests that the consulting engineer provide written confirmation - based on the findings and outcomes of their original inspection report - that all identified drainage issues have been resolved.

2. The lot owner is seeking the body corporate undertakes maintenance / repair of the protruding drainage inspection pipes, which have been identified as a safety hazard impacting the occupier. The protruding state of the drainage pipe is a result of damaged cause by body corporate broken drainage and building defects. These pipes are located on the exclusive use area of the owner's lot.

3. The lot owner seeks to have Motion 10, titled "Lot 6 Backyard Works - Monteverde," as recorded in the Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the Body Corporate for "Torwyn on Cracknell" CTS 46146 (held on 30 July 2025), declared invalid and void. This request is based on non-compliance with the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), including the failure to present alternative quotations for major spending (as required by section 173 of the Standard Module) and the lack of proper engineering oversight. The lot owner requests that the Body Corporate convene an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to present a revised and properly worded motion. This new motion should:

• Clearly specify the scope of works needed to rectify damage caused by broken roof, stormwater drainage systems and issues identified in the consulting engineer's inspection report, and to repair protruding drainage inspection pipes within the exclusive use area.

• Require the engagement of a qualified consulting engineer to confirm, upon completion, that all identified drainage and safety issues have been fully resolved in accordance with expert recommendations and statutory obligations under the BCCM Act.

4. The lot owner is seeking that the body corporate reimburses the lot owner to the sum of $790.10 which is the cost incurred in justifying the lot owner's maintenance request and pursing the matter with the office of the body corporate commissioner. These costs are as follows:

- Independent Building Surveyor engaged to assessing the safety issues identified by the lot owner - $440

- Body corporate dispute resolution Conciliation - $110.30

- Body corporate dispute resolution - Adjudication $239.80

Maintenance & repair within the exclusive use courtyard

[3] Unless the exclusive use by-law says otherwise, the owner with exclusive use is responsible for the maintenance and operating costs of the exclusive use area.[2] In this case, the by-law does not relieve Ms Steel of responsibility. Rather, by-law 18.2 says:

The owners for the time being of lots 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7 to which the exclusive use has been granted shall be solely responsible for maintaining the fence (if any) and the allocated area and for keeping the fence and area in a clean and tidy condition at all times...

[4] Ms Steel blames the subsidence within her exclusive use courtyard on "cracked stormwater infrastructure and dislodged downpipes, as concluded in the Booth Engineers report dated 30 July 2024." Exclusive use cannot be granted over common property utility infrastructure,[3] so those items remained the body corporate's responsibility to maintain.

[5] But the Booth Engineers report of 30 July 2024 said:

...we believe that the ground subsidence, particularly to the right side of Unit 6 has been influenced by insufficient/incomplete initial backfilling, particularly under the balcony as well as subsequent fill settlement/consolidation and possible poor drainage and plumbing leaks defects/breaks.

[6] The primary cause of the subsidence was identified as poor initial backfilling exacerbated by subsequent fill settlement. Drainage and plumbing defects were only identified as possible contributors.

[7] I do not see why the body corporate is responsible for addressing the subsidence within Ms Steel's exclusive use courtyard given she is "solely responsible" for the maintenance of the area.

[8] While the body corporate is responsible for the maintenance of common property utility infrastructure within the exclusive use courtyard, there is no indication that the drainage inspection pipes are in poor condition. They are simply protruding due to the settlement of the surrounding soil. That will be corrected when Ms Steel corrects the ground level within her courtyard.

[9] Motion 10 of an annual general meeting on 30 July 2025 proposed engaging a contractor to inject grout into a void beneath the balcony slab of lot 6. As discussed in the interim order, that area is unallocated common property.[4]

[10] The motion is invalid because it proposed expenditure of up to $15,000, beyond the major spending limit of $10,000, yet did not offer owners a choice between at least two quotations as required.[5] The body corporate committee accepted the error in its submission and committed to obtaining a second quotation. I will order that the motion is void as requested.

[11] I will not order the body corporate to consider a revised motion as sought by Ms Steel as I am not satisfied that the body corporate is responsible for the work she describes.

[12] Ms Steel engaged a building inspector for $440 who reported that the subsidence has caused:

1. the courtyard to slope back toward the building, and
2. step heights from the patio to the ground to exceed 190mm, contrary to the National Construction Code.

[13] The building inspector recommended "top filling the subsided ground area with suitable soil material which grades away from the building".

[14] I do not see why the body corporate should bear the cost of this report. The body corporate did not request it and is not responsible for the recommended work.

[15] Ms Steel also seeks reimbursement of her conciliation and adjudication application fees. I can only order that where the respondent failed to participate in conciliation without reasonable excuse.[6] But the body corporate participated in conciliation and an agreement was reached.

[1] Torwyn on Cracknell [2025] QBCCMCmr 326.