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

GENERAL MEETING RESOLUTION - where the body corporate resolved to amend the development approval to restrict the use of media and study rooms as additional bedrooms - whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in passing the motion.

Act, s94(2)

• [1] The applicant is a lot owner at Tower 1 Broadbeach Island (Tower 1), a community titles scheme on the Gold Coast comprising 423 lots. Each apartment in the building contains 1 or 2 bedrooms, with 90 of the apartments also having a study or media room.
• [2] Tower 1 is serviced by 4 lifts. The building has, for some time, experienced significant issues with overcrowding particularly during peak holiday seasons. Of most concern is the lengthy wait times for the lifts. The body corporate received complaints that wait times were between 20 to 30 minutes, escalating by January 2023 to wait times of between 30 minutes to an hour (and even longer on some occasions). The body corporate made various efforts to alleviate the wait times, but the problem persisted. It became apparent to the body corporate that some owners were renting their apartments with the study or media room being used as an additional bedroom. The body corporate decided that action should be taken to restrict the number of persons occupying the apartments so that the building's occupancy levels are more in line with what was originally expected when the building was constructed and for which the lifts were designed.
• [3] At the annual general meeting held on 6 September 2024 (AGM), the body corporate passed a motion (Motion 10), to apply for a change of its existing development approval to include a condition that restricts the conversion of studies and media rooms into additional bedrooms.
• [4] The applicant owns an apartment in the building which she lets for short-term accommodation. Her apartment contains a study. She wants Motion 10 invalidated for various reasons, including that it does not address the real causes of overcrowding in the building, that the proposed solution is unworkable, that it is unfair and inequitable to affected owners, and that there are viable alternative solutions which the body corporate has not implemented.
• [5] The question to be determined is whether there is any basis to invalidate Motion 10. Of primary consideration is whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in passing the motion.

[A] special resolution of applying for Development Approval Moderation for the purpose of imposition of restrictions on the bed/media room passed at the AGM of 06/09/2024 be declared to be void and of no effect.

• [7] I am satisfied that this matter falls within the legislative dispute resolution provisions.[1] An adjudicator may make an order to resolve a dispute in the context of a community title scheme between a lot owner and the body corporate about a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the CMS; or the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under the Act or CMS.[2]
• [8] On 6 November 2024, I made an interim order that pending final determination of this application, the body corporate must not take any further steps to implement Motion 10 passed at the AGM.
• [9] The Commissioner invited submissions on the final order application from the committee and all lot owners in the scheme. Submissions were received from the committee and 25 individual lot owners. The applicant inspected the submissions and made a reply.[3] The application is now referred back to me as a department adjudicator to investigate and decide whether it would be appropriate to make a final order.[4]

• [10] The committee made a submission on behalf of the body corporate, opposing the application. In summary, the body corporate submits that the following matters demonstrate that it acted reasonably in proposing and passing Motion 10:
  1. The body corporate became aware of the overcrowding issues at Tower 1 shortly after the building reached maximum occupancy in late 2022 including very significant wait times for the lifts and an inability to properly use the recreational facilities. Concerns were raised in relation to safety as a result of the overcrowding.
  2. Since late 2022, the body corporate has taken various steps to try and resolve the overcrowding issue including: carrying out numerous hardware and software upgrades to the lifts; installing cleaners' storage cupboards on every second floor; installing key drop off boxes on podium levels; and obtaining the cooperation of the building's major letting agent (The Star) to implement operational changes to reduce the use of the lifts by its staff.
  3. While the above solutions have had some success, the overcrowding issues have continued to be a persistent and serious problem during the peak periods.
  4. The body corporate identified that one factor which was increasing the number of expected occupants in the building is that some owners were advertising their one-bedroom apartments for rent for 6 people, and their two-bedroom apartments for rent for 8 people, as they were using the study or media rooms as an additional bedroom.
  5. Consequently, a motion was proposed to attempt to reduce the number of occupants in the building. The motion has broad support from the occupiers of Tower 1, and was passed by special resolution of owners, meaning it was passed by an overwhelming majority of owners.
• [11] A submission was made by The Star Entertainment GC No. 1 as the owner of Lot 10101, and a related entity of The Star Entertainment Letting Pty Ltd, being the appointed caretaking service contractor for Tower 1. Together, they are collectively referred to as "The Star".
• [12] The Star submits that modifications are being made by some lot owners that change the permanent occupancy and primary use of studies and media rooms, which are not compliant with the approved building plans, do not comply with the requirements set out within fire engineering reports and do not comply with the National Construction Code. The Star says these factors compound the issue of overcrowding, which places additional strain on building facilities and ultimately places the safety and security of the building and its occupants at risk. On this basis, The Star says it voted in favour of Motion 10.
• [13] Twenty-four other lot owners made submissions in response to the application. Twenty-one support the application while 3 oppose the application.
• [14] Those in support of the application say:
  1. Motion 10 will not resolve the overcrowding issue as it is The Star's cleaning staff's frequent use of the lifts with their large trolleys and equipment that exacerbates the lift delays;
  2. Motion 10 unfairly targets those who let their properties through Airbnb and external agents and unjustly favours The Star's letting business;
  3. The body corporate has not considered better alternative solutions such as installing storage areas on each level so The Star's cleaners do not have to use the lifts as excessively;
  4. Attributing the overcrowding in the building to those who use their media rooms and studies as bedrooms was not based on facts. These owners are wrongly accused for the overcrowding;
  5. There were no conditions in the disclosure statement at the time of purchasing these apartments that restricted the use of the media and study rooms;
  6. It is unknown how many owners are using their studies and media rooms as additional bedrooms - it is only a small number;
  7. There were 87 votes cast by proxy for Motion 10 at the AGM. All proxies were from owners of apartments managed by The Star and were given to committee members who controlled the majority votes.
• [15] Those opposing the application say:
  1. The study and media rooms are windowless alcoves, not bedrooms;
  2. The applicant is only concerned with protecting her financial return;
  3. The overcrowding places a strain on all facilities, not just the lifts but also sewerage, garbage, common property toilets and recreational areas, leading to increased costs for owners over time;
  4. It is a fire risk to overload the building beyond its designed capacity;
  5. Enjoyment of the building is inhibited when the building is over-occupied;
  6. Unless a stop is put to it, other potential investors could also abuse the system in this way.

• [16] Motion 10 of the AGM is recorded as follows:

1. THAT THE Body Corporate for Tower 1 Broadbeach Island CTS 55106 (Body Corporate) resolves by special resolution to appoint URBIS Ltd to make and manage a change application to the existing Development Approval to the Minister to include the following paragraph as a condition of the Development Approval:

Studies and media rooms identified on the approved drawings must not be used for or converted into additional bedrooms. Any application to change the attributes of the approved layout in the approved plans and/or drawings for a particular apartment to increase the number of bedrooms from that depicted on the approved plans and/or drawings must include the consent of the Body Corporate because of the increased density and potential impacts on common property. Any application to change the approved layout in the approved plans and/or drawings for a particular apartment to increase the number of bedrooms from that depicted on the approved plans and/or drawings will be assessed against the approved Stage 1 plans and/or drawings, and this condition.

The content and effect of this condition must be given to any buyer of an apartment for sale or occupier for rent (short term or long-term) prior to entry into the sale contract or the rental agreement. Each such agreement must specify the number of bedrooms identified in the approved plans and/or drawings and limit the use of any study or media room identified on the approved drawings for only those purposes.

1. That the Body Corporate consent to any amendments of a non-material nature being made to the Development Approval or other related document, if such amendments are required or desirable in order to effect the change to the Development Approval in [1] above; and

3. That two committee members, one of whom must be the chair or secretary is authorised to jointly sign any document required to give effect to the motion in [1].

• [17] The motion was passed by special resolution with 149 votes in favour, 55 against and 5 abstentions.
• [18] The question to be determined is whether there is any basis to invalidate Motion 10.
• [19] As outlined in my interim decision, a body corporate has a statutory obligation to act reasonably in discharging its functions, including when making decisions.[5] Where an adjudicator is satisfied that a decision to pass a motion at a general meeting of the body corporate was unreasonable, an order may be made declaring that the motion was invalid.[6]
• [20] The test for reasonableness has been subject of considerable case law. What is reasonable is an objective question of fact, based upon a consideration of all the circumstances of the particular case.[7] Reasonable action is evidenced-based and rational.[8] It requires a body corporate to take into account all factors that are relevant to the issue at hand, and to discard those factors that are irrelevant.[9] However, a body corporate's decision is not unreasonable simply because it could have made a 'better' or more informed decision.[10] Reasonableness is not whatever the adjudicator considers to be just and equitable; an adjudicator may not simply substitute their own opinion as to what would be a preferable decision.[11] The onus is on the applicant, as the one challenging the decision, to establish that the body corporate acted unreasonably.
• [21] I will now address each of the objections raised by the applicant.

• [22] The applicant believes that the real cause of the overcrowding issues is the inadequacy of Tower 1's lift design. She provides a table of several "similar" buildings on the Gold Coast comparing (amongst other things) the number of lifts in those buildings and the number of apartments and levels they service. The applicant concludes from this self-produced data that the lift capacity in Tower 1 is somewhere between 45 to 58 percent less than the lifts of other similar buildings.
• [23] In response, the body corporate submits that there is no evidence to support the applicant's assertion that the reason for the overcrowding is the "under-design of the lift facility". The body corporate says the comparison prepared by the applicant is based on unsubstantiated information and does not include a number of other metrics which are important to understanding the efficiency of the relevant lifts. To the body corporate's understanding, the lifts were designed based on the number of approved bedrooms in Tower 1 in order to meet application building codes. The body corporate notes that the lift operational reports it has obtained since 2022 has made a number of suggestions to improve the efficiency of the lifts, but says that none of those reports suggest that the lifts were designed below required standards. More relevantly, the body corporate submits that however the lifts were constructed (including the number of lifts) is beyond the control of the body corporate; it is not a matter that the body corporate can now reasonably remedy.
• [24] In reply, the applicant acknowledges that it is beyond the control of the body corporate to increase the number of lifts in the building but says it should not be denied that the lack of lifts is the major contributing factor to the overcrowding. By denying this important factor, the applicant says the body corporate has put too much weight on other supposed contributors, resulting in owners who have study or media rooms being unfairly singled out as causing the overcrowding during peak seasons.
• [25] Given the circumstances described, it is plausible that the lifts in Tower 1 may be inadequately designed to service the needs of the building. However, as accepted by the parties, this is not something that can now be remedied post-construction. The body corporate must administer the common property and body corporate assets for the benefit of owners.[12] In doing so, it can only take steps reasonably within its control. Prior to the proposal of Motion 10, the body corporate had engaged various strategies to maximise the lifts' efficiency, including reducing the use of the lifts by The Star's staff. Those measures, while helpful, did not sufficiently resolve the overcrowding during peak periods. Aware that some apartments were being overcrowded, the body corporate then turned to another potential solution, that is, to restrict the number of persons occupying the apartments. The body corporate proposed to do this by applying for a change to the development approval, to include a condition that media and study rooms cannot be used as or converted into additional bedrooms. The applicant has not satisfied me that it was unreasonable for the body corporate to take this course of action as part of its efforts to address the persistent overcrowding in the building. I am not persuaded that those with study or media rooms are being "singled out" as the applicant claims. Rather, Motion 10 is one of the steps reasonably taken by the body corporate to manage occupancy levels in the building and its impacts on common property, including the lifts.

• [26] The applicant submits that the second biggest contributor to the overcrowding is the way in which The Star, who manages nearly 50% of the building, carries out its housekeeping operations. She says that The Star's cleaning team uses large trolleys to transport their equipment and to carry out daily room cleaning services, often solely occupying the lift during peak times in the day. She also alleges that The Star frequently uses the lift to transport large mobile folding beds to accommodate more people in their apartments during peak seasons. The applicant alleges that The Star dedicates a whole lift for its exclusive use by locking up the lift for its operations, leaving only 3 lifts for reliable public use. The application includes photographs purporting to evidence the amount of lift space that The Star's trolleys and folding beds occupy. In comparison, the applicant submits that she and other independent short-term operators only provide cleaning services once guests have checked out, and that they do not utilise large trolleys or transport folding beds as The Star does. The applicant submits that they should not be treated as "scapegoats" and be faulted for the overcrowding in the building when in fact The Star's cleaning operations is the second main cause of the overcrowding, after the under-design of the lift facility.
• [27] The body corporate says the way the applicant describes The Star's cleaning services is inaccurate. It says The Star has co-operated with the body corporate by changing its operations including only servicing the apartments during defined times and ceasing daily room cleaning, meaning that the cleaning frequency would be the same as the other individually managed rentals. The body corporate says the statements made about The Star reserving the lifts for their exclusive use are also untrue. Rather, the lifts are only locked for limited purposes, including if an occupant is moving furniture in or out of the building. Further, the body corporate says that in 2023, it installed additional storage cupboards on every second floor to minimise the use of lifts by the cleaners with trolleys.
• [28] In replying to the body corporate's submission, the applicant disputes that The Star has ceased their daily housekeeping practices. She says a search of online booking platforms revealed that The Star offers guests 2 booking options - one that includes housekeeping and another cheaper option that does not. The applicant also disputes the effectiveness of the storage cupboards that have been installed, asserting that it has made no real impact on reducing the staff's use of the lifts.
• [29] On the submitted evidence, I can accept on balance that at various times, The Star's cleaning practices have likely contributed towards the lift delays given the extent and nature of their operations. The regular use of the lifts by the housekeeping staff along with the space occupied by their equipment quite logically reduces the availability of the lifts for others and hence increases wait times. However, the evidence does not establish that The Star's cleaning practices is the "second major contributor" of the overcrowding as alleged by the applicant. How much The Star's use of the lifts contributes to the wait times is not something that can be precisely measured. Moreover, even if The Star's operations significantly contributes to the overcrowding of the lifts, it does not necessarily follow that it was unreasonable for the body corporate to propose and resolve in favour of Motion 10.
• [30] In making a decision, the body corporate must take into account all of the relevant circumstances. By the time of the AGM, Tower 1 had experienced ongoing overcrowding issues with lengthy lift wait times for over 18 months. I note the following comments made in the Chairperson's annual letter to owners attached to the Notice of AGM:

Compared to early 2023, the lifts are operating more smoothly and cope better, however with such a large building and at times full occupancy and thus foot traffic, waiting times can still arise at peak periods. Room guides including lift use tips are given to short-term tower occupants, however the sheer number of users is the core of the problem. We are addressing this matter in another way, covered further below.

The Body Corporate is proposing a motion at the upcoming AGM to bring into line the occupancy with sensible apartment limits by replicating the new Tower 2's guidelines - that study and media rooms must not be converted into additional bedrooms. This motion will result in Gold Coast Council evaluation and ultimately will seek the relevant Queensland Government Minister approvals to amend Tower 1's "Development Conditions". I recommend all apartment owners positively consider this motion to help control occupancy numbers and costs.

• [31] Despite the various measures the body corporate had taken to try and improve lift efficiency, it is undisputed that during peak periods, wait times continue to be a problem. In the circumstances, it is not unreasonable for the body corporate to consider all options available to prevent the ongoing impacts of overcrowding. Even if there are other causes for the lift delays, including by The Star's housekeeping staff as suggested by the applicant, it is not irrational nor illogical for the body corporate to manage apartment occupancy numbers to help alleviate the overcrowding of the building.
• [32] Further, I note that whilst reduced lift efficiency was highlighted by the committee as a significant issue, multiple other concerns were raised in relation to the overcrowding of the building. In the chairperson's address to owners, he added that overcrowding also overloads the building's other facilities including for heating and cooling, sewerage, and garbage, resulting in increased costs for all apartment owners. Comment is also made that overcrowding impacts on safety, for example, during emergency evacuations.
• [33] In these circumstances, while The Star's cleaning practices may be a relevant factor for the body corporate to consider in determining how to improve lift efficiency, I do not consider it unreasonable for the body corporate to also manage the overcrowding of the building by the proposed condition in Motion 10.

• [34] The applicant argues that the proposed restriction will not be achieve its objective of resolving the building's overcrowding issues. Firstly, as already discussed, the applicant says the restriction misidentifies the real causes of the overcrowding, namely the under-design of the lift facility and the business operation of The Star. She further argues that the restriction has only focused on apartments with studies and media rooms, but it does not prevent owners from using their living rooms to allow for additional guests. The applicant also suggests that the restriction can be easily circumvented and is unable to be effectively enforced by the committee.
• [35] The body corporate acknowledges that the decision is not a "silver bullet" that will entirely resolve the overcrowding issues. However, it believes it is likely to significantly reduce the number of occupants in the building during peak periods. The body corporate notes that even if only 70 of the 90 rooms had an additional 2 occupants using the study or media room, these 140 occupants would still be a large factor in lift crowding.
• [36] In reply, the applicant asserts that based on her calculations, there are only a maximum of 8 apartments that use their study or media room as an additional room for guests and says if each of those apartments house an additional 2 guests, then there are 16 additional occupants in Tower 1 at any given time. The applicant says 16 additional people cannot have caused the lengthy wait times that were experienced during peak seasons. Accordingly, the applicant says there must be other major factors for the overcrowding.
• [37] I do not accept that either party is able to conclusively say how many extra occupants are in fact being accommodated as a result of the media and study rooms being used as additional bedrooms at any given time. Even if I were to accept the more conservative figures presented by the applicant, this does not lead to the conclusion that it was unreasonable for the body corporate to pass Motion 10. Given that there are 90 apartments that have a media room or study, and that at least some of these are being used as bedrooms to house additional occupants, it is possible that this may at least be contributing to the overcrowding experienced during peak periods. How widespread the practice is and how much it contributes to the overcrowding of the building is unclear. I do not agree with the applicant that they can be "certain" that the restriction will not prevent more people from staying in the premises, and that it clearly has "no chance" of resolving the overcrowding during the peak seasons. It is speculative for the applicant to suggest that owners will refuse to comply with the restriction and that it will be unenforceable. There is no reason why a development approval condition cannot be reasonably enforced against owners who breach it. How effective the restriction will be remains to be seen.
• [38] Finally, it should be noted that the effectiveness of the proposal does not determine the reasonableness of the body corporate's actions. Even if it turns out that the restriction does little to alleviate the overcrowding concerns, this is not to say the body corporate acted unreasonably in the circumstances. As will be discussed further below, the body corporate does not have to make the best or most effective decision. It's obligation is to act reasonably in the circumstances. Thus far, I am not satisfied that the body corporate has failed to do so.

• [39] The applicant says that when she purchased her apartment, there was no restriction in the disclosure statement as to how the study or media rooms could be utilised as long as they complied with local government regulations. She says she would not have agreed to such a condition and that she would not have paid the same price for the property if there was such a restriction against the use of the study as a bedroom.
• [40] Section 213 of the Act sets out the information that a disclosure statement must include. The restriction, if it existed at the time, would have been part of the original development approval, but there is no requirement that it must be included in the disclosure statement. Further, just because the condition was not part of the development approval at the time does not necessarily preclude the body corporate from later seeking to include it. The question again is whether the body corporate acted reasonably in doing so.
• [41] The body corporate says that in proposing and passing Motion 10, it was very conscious of its obligation to administer the common property and body corporate assets for the benefit of all lot owners, and that it carefully considered who would be affected by the motion and how they would be affected. The body corporate says it considered that the proposal, in alleviating the overcrowding issues would benefit all owners who permanently live in Tower 1, all owners who use their apartment as holiday accommodation, as well as all owners who rent out their apartment. It says a number of the complaints came from guests who were had negative experiences staying at Tower 1 due to the overcrowding issues. Multiple complaints were received by the body corporate stating that guests had cut short their stay and would not stay there again, and that guests were warning others against staying at Tower 1. The body corporate says it is therefore also in the interests of short-term rental owners that the overcrowding is alleviated.
• [42] The body corporate says it also considered that the proposal would have a negative impact on a minority of owners who rent their apartments with the use of their media or study rooms as additional bedrooms. The negative impact would be a reduction in the amount of rent these owners would receive through their short-term rentals as fewer people would be able to stay in their apartments under this new restriction. The body corporate says it considered it relevant that the disclosure statement made it clear that the lot entitlements are calculated on the basis of the number of bedrooms as more bedrooms indicate a greater number of occupants who will place a greater burden on common property, and therefore an apartment with more bedrooms will have a higher contribution schedule lot entitlement. The body corporate says that while the disclosure statement may not have expressly stated that the study and media rooms cannot be used as additional bedrooms, it is evident that this was not contemplated.
• [43] Further the body corporate suggests a reason that the disclosure memorandum did not expressly provide that study or media rooms cannot be converted into an additional bedrooms is because such action would be contrary to the building code. The applicant disputes this assertion. I have not considered this argument further as the body corporate is not suggesting that the apartments' alleged non-compliance with the building code is why it introduced the restriction. It is not for me to determine whether the room modifications comply with the building code and, in any case, it does not impact my determination of the current application.
• [44] In a community titles scheme where there are often competing interests between owners, there will be occasions where decisions are made that are not advantageous to all. This of itself does not mean the body corporate acted unreasonably in making the decision. It is clear to me that the overcrowding of the building was the key driving force for Motion 10. While the decision may have financial consequences for the applicant and other affected owners, it was made in good faith by the body corporate in seeking to administer the common property for the overall benefit of owners in the scheme.

• [45] The applicant makes a number of other claims against the body corporate including that:
  1. There was no consultation with affected owners about the proposed motion while there seemed to be extensive communication between the committee and The Star and with those owners whose lots are managed by The Star;
  2. Of the 146 'yes' votes, 87 were proxy votes from those lots under The Star's management; and
  3. The Star has imposed too much influence on the body corporate's decision-making process resulting in an injustice on the minority owners who have been targeted as The Star's competitors.
• [46] In her reply to submissions, the applicant concludes that it is clear that the voting process has been orchestrated by the body corporate and The Star for their desired outcome. She adds that The Star has "colluded" with the body corporate in "engineering the voting process." There is no basis to these allegations. An owner may choose to exercise their vote by proxy. The fact that a number of proxy votes came from those lots in The Star's letting pool, and that the votes supported the motion, does not evidence that the body corporate (or The Star) acted unlawfully. There is no suggestion that the votes were invalidly exercised. The speculations about The Star's relationship with the body corporate, and how it stands to benefit from Motion 10 are unsubstantiated and do not warrant further investigation. I am not satisfied there is any evidence that the body corporate acted unreasonably in the circumstances.

• [47] The applicant submits that she had previously proposed 2 alternative solutions to the committee to address the overcrowding issues but that these solutions have not been acted upon. The first solution is to install storage on every level for cleaning equipment, laundry and room supplies, reducing the need for large trolleys, and in turn, freeing up space for passengers on the lifts. The second solution is to stipulate maximum occupancy numbers to all apartments in the building, irrespective of whether or not they contain a study or media room. The applicant says this solution is fair and equitable to all owners in the building. The applicant submits that these 2 alternative solutions are "much more superior" than imposing the restriction proposed by Motion 10. She argues that Motion 10 is clearly unsuitable or at least "less suitable" than the alternative solutions because it has targeted the wrong persons and will have little or no impact in resolving the issue of overcrowding.
• [48] In determining whether the body corporate acted reasonably, it is irrelevant which solution the applicant thinks will be most effective at resolving the overcrowding issues. The obligation on the body corporate to act reasonably does not require it to select the most suitable solution. As I set out earlier, a body corporate's decision is not unreasonable simply because it could have made a 'better' or more informed decision. It is also not for I, as the adjudicator, to decide what is a 'more' just and equitable outcome. Rather, it is for the applicant to satisfy me that the body corporate acted unreasonably in the circumstances. For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied the applicant has discharged this onus.

• [49] The proposed change to the development approval to restrict the use of media and study rooms as additional bedrooms, is one step being taken by the body corporate to try and alleviate the overcrowding issues in the building. It may not be the only solution and it may not entirely resolve the concerns, but I am not satisfied that it was unreasonable for the body corporate to take this action in the circumstances.
• [50] Accordingly, I find no basis to invalidate the resolution passed on Motion 10 at the AGM. The application is dismissed.

[6] See Item 24 of Schedule 5 of the Act

[7] Waters v Public Transport Corporation [1991] HCA 49 at [59]; Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Styles [1989] FCA 342 at [51]

[8] Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at [23] citing SZLGP v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1198 [15]-[16]

[9] Ibid at [42], citing McKinnon v Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45 at [11]

[10] Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1997] FCA 1311

[11] Ainsworth & Ors v Albrecht & Anor [2016] HCA 40 at 101