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

MAINTENANCE - where the body corporate engaged a contractor to undertake tiling and waterproofing works on the balcony of a lot - where the body corporate invoiced the owners for the tiling works - whether the body corporate was entitled to pass the costs on to the owners.

Act, ss 94, 100, 227, 229A, 242; Accommodation Module, ss 180, 202

1. The Body Corporate for Vardon Point Apartments is not entitled to charge any former or current owner of Lot 50 for costs associated with tiling works undertaken on Lot 50 in February 2025.
2. The Body Corporate for Vardon Point Apartments must cancel the invoice dated 3 July 2025 for $14,276.50, remove any debt for that amount from the account for Lot 50, and cease any debt recovery actions in relation to that amount.
3. The application is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] This application relates the responsibility for the cost of tiling works undertaken by the body corporate on the balcony of Lot 50 (known as apartment 69).
• [2] In 2024 water ingress was identified in the common property basement carpark, in an area below the balcony of Lot 50. The body corporate apparently decided the water ingress originated from the balcony and that the Lot 50 owners were responsible for repairs. In February 2025 a contractor organised by the body corporate removed the tiles, waterproofed the balcony, and laid new tiles. The body corporate then invoiced the owners for the tiling.
• [3] The lot owners dispute liability for the work. They assert the water ingress arose from a failure of the waterproofing membrane (a body corporate responsibility). They say there is evidence of absent or inadequate waterproofing and no evidence that the condition of the tiles and grout caused the water ingress. They further assert the body corporate failed to act reasonably.
• [4] The applicant seeks orders that the body corporate cease enforcement of the invoice it issued and be declared responsible for the cost of removing and replacing the tiles. They also seek to invalidate a committee resolution determining the lot owners were responsible. The substantive question to decide then is who is responsible for the cost of the tiling work.

• [5] Vardon Point Apartments community titles scheme 29516 (Vardon Point Apartments) is a 70-lot scheme in Pelican Waters. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Accommodation Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plans 138675, 140379 and 143131. The scheme is part of a layered arrangement.
• [6] The application seeks the following orders:

That the Body Corporate for Vardon Point Apartments be ordered to:

1. Cease all recovery or enforcement action in relation to the invoice dated 3 July 2025 for $14,276.50 issued to Lot 50;
2. Be declared responsible for the cost of removing and replacing the balcony tiles on Lot 50; and
3. That the resolution passed by the committee at its meeting on 18 July 2024, directing that Lot 50 be responsible for the repair or replacement of tiles, be declared void and of no effect.

• [7] The applicant initially applied for conciliation of the dispute on 2 June 2025.[1] The parties participated in conciliation but did not reach an agreement.
• [8] This application was lodged on 15 July 2025. The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicant on some aspects of the application.[2] The application was subsequently amended.[3]
• [9] The Commissioner invited submissions from the committee and all owners.[4] Five submissions were received. The applicant obtained and responded to the submissions.[5]
• [10] The application was referred to department adjudication.[6]
• [11] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing the submitted material.[7] I sought further information from the body corporate on several matters, the responses to which I will note below where appropriate.

• [12] 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.[8]
• [13] Prima facie, I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions.[9] However, there are some preliminary matters to note.

• [14] The Act defines disputes by reference to the parties. The applicant was an owner of Lot 50 when the application was lodged. However, titles records show ownership of the lot was transferred in August 2025. As such, the applicant is no longer a person named in section 227(1) of the Act for the purposes of this dispute. In such situations, an application could be dismissed if the outcome sought was no longer relevant or required.[10] However, I am satisfied that in the current circumstances the applicant has a continuing interest in the order sought.

• [15] Another issue arises where the applicant is disputing a body corporate invoice and seeking to stop debt recovery action. An adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to determine a debt dispute.[11] A 'debt dispute' is defined in the Act as a dispute between a body corporate and an owner about the recovery, by the body corporate from the owner, of a debt under this Act.[12] For there to be a debt dispute, there needs to be an amount owing under the Act. [13] So, if an amount claimed is not owed under the Act, a dispute about the amount is not a debt dispute. If the body corporate cannot lawfully invoice the owners of Lot 50 for the disputed amount, there will be no amount owing under the Act. Accordingly, to determine if I have jurisdiction to decide this dispute, I must consider if the invoiced amount was validly owing under the Act.

• [16] The Act provides, in part, that an application to invalidate a committee resolution must be lodged within 3 months of the date of the meeting.[14] The Commissioner must deal with a late application as if it were in time. An adjudicator may then waive the time limit for 'good reason'. A person will have complied with the time limit if they apply for conciliation with the time limit.
• [17] Whether there is 'good reason' to waive the time limit requires consideration of circumstances such as the length of the delay, the reason for it, any prejudice to the respondent and others, and the prospects of success if the application had been made in time.
• [18] The applicant seeks to invalidate a committee resolution purportedly passed on 18 July 2024. An application to do so needed to be lodged by 18 October 2024. However, the conciliation application was lodged on 2 June 2025, more than 10 months after the meeting.
• [19] The applicant details their actions after the July meeting and say they accepted in good faith a verbal agreement with the body corporate. They say the work did not occur until 6 months later and there was no indication until March 2025 that they would be invoiced for it. They say they then tried to resolve the matter directly, before applying for conciliation.
• [20] It is questionable from the relevant minutes that the committee actually voted on and passed a resolution, rather than simply noting action to be taken. And the body corporate submission does not dispute the agreement claimed by the applicant. Moreover, there does not appear to be any prejudice to the body corporate from any delay. I am satisfied there is sufficient reason to waive any time limit that would apply to this application.

• [21] The body corporate says on 10 July 2024 it identified that water was leaking into the basement car park below the balcony of the applicant's Lot 50.
• [22] The matter was discussed at a committee meeting on 18 July 2024. The minutes (at item 7.1) say water was leaking through the balcony tiles and owners had been advised in 2018 that balconies needed remedial action as identified in an engineer's report for water seeping through ground floor balconies. The minutes said the body corporate manager (BCM) would write to the owners of Lot 50 advising the balcony tiles must be repaired or replaced and then the body corporate would waterproof the balcony surface. It seems the body corporate did not obtain or consider any professional advice on the source or cause of the water ingress or the condition of the balcony tiles before concluding that work was required on the tiles.
• [23] The BCM wrote to the owners in these terms a month later. The owners responded saying they believed the water leakage was a result of the balcony not being adequately waterproofed, which was a body corporate responsibility. They referred to a previous adjudicator's order.
• [24] The body corporate organised a tiler to inspect the balcony tiles. On 19 September Trev's Tiling provided a brief report based on their inspection of the lot on that day. It quoted $27,600 plus GST to remove the tiles, waterproof, and lay new tiles. It said it observed:

Evidence is showing water is leaking through to the downstairs carpark

No waterproofing returning up the walls which would suggest no waterproofing as used

Very little if any fall away from unit which is resulting in water pooling (sic)

• [25] After further communication, the applicant says two committee members verbally advised in September that, due to the carpark damage, the committee would proceed with the work and pay for it upfront, but then seek adjudication about the cost. The applicant says they agreed.
• [26] On 20 November CFS QLD Pty Ltd (CFS) provided a quote to the body corporate for $16,472.50 for work including to remove tiles, vary falls, waterproof, and install new tiles.
• [27] On 2 December the onsite manager told the lot owners the body corporate had advised it was happy to proceed with CFS as the cheapest quote. They said CFS was available in February.
• [28] It does not appear there was a body corporate resolution to undertake the work. The BCM asserts there was no need to make or record a decision because the lot owners engaged the tiler, and the bulk of the cost was invoiced to owners.
• [29] CFS apparently undertook the work in February 2025. It issued an invoice naming the lot owners on 28 February for $14,276.50 including GST. The invoice total excluded amounts ($5,760 for waterproofing and $1,361.36 representing 10% of the labour to remove the border tiles, rails and reinstate the rails) as being paid by the body corporate.
• [30] On 7 March CFS provided the body corporate a report which said:

The tiles in Unit 69 were found to be drummy, indicating detachment or voids beneath the surface. The overall condition of the tiles was poor, requiring attention to prevent further deterioration or safety hazards.

Grout was observed to be cracked and missing in several areas, compromising the structural integrity and appearance of the tiled surfaces.

Water pooling was identified on the balcony, raising concerns about drainage and waterproofing. This issue posed potential risks for water damage and safety concerns if left unresolved.

• [31] The BCM gave the owners the CFS invoice (but apparently not the report) on 24 March referring to it as their contribution to retiling the balcony. The BCM said the body corporate would pay for the waterproofing and about 10% of the tiling but the owners owed the balance.
• [32] The owners again disputed liability for replacing the tiles. They referred to the verbal agreement that the body corporate would cover the cost of the work and then seek a ruling. They said they did not agree to pay for the tiling and if they had been responsible for tiling, they would have engaged their own tiler who was some $5,000 cheaper.
• [33] On 9 May the committee resolved to advise the owners the cost of the tiling would be added to the owner's account as a debt. The body corporate then issued an invoice dated 3 July.
• [34] On 11 July the committee rejected an offer by the owners to contribute to the cost of the tiles.

• [35] A submission made on behalf of the committee says the dispute is not about the cost of removing tiles to facilitate the installation of a waterproof membrane but the lack of maintenance of the tiling and grouting. It said the entire balcony needed repair due to the adherence of the tiles to the substrate, degraded grout, and expansion joints. It includes:
  1. It did not advise the owner that the balcony needed waterproofing, but rather the owner must repair their balcony tiles.
  2. On other balconies where the tiles were in good condition, but the membrane had broken down, it had to remove good tiles and grouting to replace the membrane.
  3. The previous decision implies that if tiles are not in good condition, the tiles would not have to be removed for the sole purpose of applying the membrane and the owner would be responsible for the repair or replacement of the tiles.
  4. It selected the contractor based on the lowest quote. The applicant was made aware of the quotes received but did not engage on the issues.
  5. The reports showed the tiles were drummy and the grout was cracked and badly deteriorated. That was the responsibility of the lot owners.
  6. If the tiling and grouting was in good condition, it would have used a much cheaper over-the-top waterproofing membrane. That was used in other similar situations.
  7. Body corporate representatives observed a leaking tap on the balcony, with tiles detached and water underneath. It appeared the tap had been leaking for some time.
  8. It disputes the water ingress was more likely attributable to the membrane failure than the poor tile condition. There is no evidence membranes typically fail before tiles or grout deteriorates. Professional advice indicated poor tiling maintenance will lead over time to the degradation of the tile adhesive and the membrane.
  9. All professional advice clearly indicated the position of the leaks in the car park were from locations on the balcony where drummy tiles and bad grouting were evident.
  10. Evidence of waterproofing under the balcony tiles does exist, as the remains of a black tar-based membrane were revealed when the tiles and adhesive was removed.
  11. Claims of non-compliant original waterproofing installation is speculative. The lack of waterproofing on the vertical returns does not indicate the slab was not waterproofed. The evidence is there was waterproofing. It has taken 20 years for leaks to occur.
  12. Leaking tiles due to grout deterioration will damage the adhesion of the tiles to the substrate and to the waterproof membrane over time.
  13. Conversations showed the owners did not believe they were responsible for lifting or replacing the tiles, while the body corporate's position was that the applicants were responsible for maintaining the tiles. It invoiced the owners on that basis.
  14. The body corporate had an obligation to engage a contractor as soon as possible to prevent any further damage to the infrastructure.
• [36] Three owners made submissions in support of the application.
  1. One says it is clear the balcony tiles were removed and replaced to stop water penetration into the garage and the body corporate should be responsible for the full cost. They note past orders and object to the body corporate's handling of the matter.
  2. Another notes a previous order and says it was their understanding that if the tiles were in good condition, it was a body corporate responsibility to carry out the work.
  3. A third says the body corporate appears to base its position on the assertion that the deterioration of the tiles or grout caused the water ingress, but the tiling reports make no such finding. Further, one report identified the absence of waterproofing returns suggestion original structural non-compliance. They also say the applicant acted reasonably and in reliance on the verbal assurance that costs would not be imposed unilaterally. They say the body corporate failed to consider the applicant's motions, delayed the release of expert reports, and did not issue clear notice that costs would be recovered from the owners. They say the committee failed to conduct a proper assessment of what actually caused the water ingress or consider the expert advice.
• [37] The former co-owner of Lot 50 notes the impact of the dispute. They say the body corporate said it would pay for the tiling and then proceed to adjudication, and but instead sent them the invoice with no reason. They say the body corporate did not give them the tiling reports before removing the tiles and nothing in those reports link the tiles to the water ingress. The submitter notes that even if the tiles had been in excellent condition, the waterproofing would have required their removal. They say the alternative of putting sealer over the top of the existing tiles, would have deteriorated more quickly and was not a long-term solution. They say they were given no choice in the scope, contractor, timing, or cost of the work, other than the choice of tiles, as it was entirely managed by the committee. They say their motions were ignored.
• [38] The applicant's response to the body corporate's submission includes:
  1. They dispute their entire balcony needed repair and say only a small patch of tiles was drummy. A photograph taken before the removal shows most tiles were in reasonable condition. Even if there were minor grout issues, grout is porous which is why under-tile membranes are standard industry practice.
  2. No tile reports were obtained for the other balconies mentioned and so claims about their condition cannot be relied on.
  3. The photograph of the balcony after the tiles were removed show no evidence of waterproofing or black tar on the wall return and only remnants of adhesive are visible.
  4. The body corporate relies on the CFS report prepared after the work was completed. That cannot credibly establish the condition of the tiles or presence of waterproofing.
  5. They had no dealing with the body corporate's tiler and were never involved in managing the project. They did not agree to any variation costs.
  6. The body corporate refers to photographs from Trev's Tiling, but these were not given to them and were not included in the submission. The report from Trev's Tiling makes no finding that their tiles caused the carpark ceiling leak. There were no leak detection tests and no evidence linking their tiles to the water ingress.
  7. If a balcony is leaking, full under-tile waterproofing is required. Over-tile coatings do not perform as effectively or and durably.
  8. There was a leaking tap on the balcony, but it was only leaking for a couple of days due to an incorrect hose fitting and was fixed once identified. It cannot reasonably explain the water ingress into the basement. And it highlights the need for waterproof membranes to protect against water passing through tiles and grout.
  9. The body corporate has never disputed their account of a meeting with committee members where they were verbally assured the body corporate would fund the tiling works and then take the matter to adjudication.
  10. The body corporate has not provided credible evidence that their balcony tiles or grout caused the water ingress into the carpark ceiling. Its own photographs show the tiles were in good condition before removal, and there was no membrane under the tiles. The body corporate itself rejected the over-tile waterproofing and it arranged and controlled all the works. The cost of the work should not be recoverable from them.

• [39] The issue in this dispute is the responsibility for the cost of removing and replacing tiles on the balcony of Lot 50. In deciding this matter, I will note the legislation and case law relevant to the dispute and then discuss the circumstances and submitted evidence.

• [40] Vardon Point Apartments is registered as a building format plan of subdivision (BFP). In this type of survey plan, the boundaries are defined by the structural elements of a building, including the floors, walls, and ceilings. Where a lot is separated from another lot or common property by a floor, wall or ceiling, the boundary is the centre of the floor, wall, or ceiling.[15]
• [41] A lot owner must maintain their lot in good condition, except where it is the body corporate's responsibility to maintain.[16] A body corporate must maintain common property in good and structurally sound condition.[17] But in a BFP, a body corporate must also maintain the following things that are not on common property in good condition:[18]
  1. railings, parapets, and balustrades on the boundary of a lot and common property
  2. doors, windows, and fittings in the boundary of a lot and common property, and
  3. roofing membranes that provide protection for lots or common property.

Similarly, it must maintain foundation structures, roofing structures providing protection, and essential supporting framework including load-bearing walls, in structurally sound condition.[19]

• [42] In the context of a body corporate's maintenance obligations, the District Court of Queensland has considered the statutory duty in the Act to maintain. The Court has said:

The statutory duty imposed ... is one which obliges it to remedy any defect as soon as any of the building parts covered by the duty fall into disrepair or were not operating properly. Failure to do so, once aware, gave rise to a breach of its duty.[20]

...there is an intention disclosed by the legislation for a duty of care to arise.[21]

• [43] The latter decision applied a Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division case:

The duty to maintain: involves an obligation to keep a thing in proper order by acts of maintenance before it falls out of condition, in a state which enables it to serve the purpose for which it exists; requires the body corporate not only to attend to cases where there is a malfunction, but also to take preventative measures to ensure that there not be a malfunction; extends to require remediation of defects in the original construction of the common property; and extends to oblige the body corporate to do things which could not be for the benefit of the proprietors as a whole or even a majority of them. There is a breach of the duty as soon as something in the common property is no longer operating effectively or at all, or has fallen into disrepair. [22]

• [44] The regulations provide that despite the body corporate obligation to maintain parts of a lot in a BFP, it can recover costs as a debt from a person whose actions cause or contribute to the damage or deterioration of part of the lot.[23] The costs claimable will be the portion of the reasonable cost to the body corporate of carrying out maintenance that the body corporate reasonably considers can be fairly attributed to the person's actions.
• [45] Also, the regulations provide for circumstances where an owner or occupier does not carry out work that they have an obligation to carry out under the legislation, a statutory notice, the CMS, an adjudicator's order, or a court or tribunal order.[24] In that case, the body corporate may carry out the work and recover the reasonable cost of carrying out the work as a debt.

• [46] Survey plan 143131 shows the balcony on Lot 50 is located within the boundaries of the lot. Prima facie, the lot owners are responsible for maintaining the balcony, including its tiles.
• [47] However, the balcony slab can be viewed as a roofing structure that provides protection for the common property on the level below, as well as being essential supporting framework. On that basis, the body corporate is responsible for maintaining the balcony slab in a structurally sound condition. It is also responsible for maintaining the waterproofing on the balcony, as a roofing membrane that provides protection for lots or common property, in good condition.
• [48] Where a body corporate must maintain a roofing membrane, it is liable for any damage (including to a lot) arising from a failure of the membrane.[25] And it is responsible for all work necessary to meet its maintenance obligations. If, for example, balcony tiles need to be removed and replaced to enable the body corporate to rectify the underlying membrane, it would be responsible for the tiling work despite the owner's general responsibility for the tiles. But if tiling work was not necessitated by work the body corporate was required or chose to undertake on the membrane, the body corporate would prima facie not be liable for it.

• [49] There is reference to previous orders made about tiling at this scheme. There may have been some misunderstanding about those orders. I will note the substance of the decisions.
• [50] In March 2017 and adjudication dismissed an application by owners seeking reimbursement of the cost to tile their balcony.[26] The owners argued the works were necessary due to cracking to the slab beneath. However, the adjudicator was not persuaded on the evidence that the body corporate had failed to maintain the slab of that lot in a structurally sound condition.
• [51] However, in that decision the adjudicator said a building defects report obtained by the body corporate in August 2016 recommended tiles in certain affected balconies be pulled up, a waterproof membrane applied, and the tiles re-laid. The adjudicator noted that if the body corporate had to remove the tiles from lot owner's balconies for the purpose of applying a waterproof membrane, it would likely be responsible for the tile removal and replacement.[27]
• [52] In December 2019 an adjudicator made an order requiring the body corporate to pay for all work to the balcony of another lot.[28] The body corporate sought to rectify the waterproof membrane on a balcony. It agreed to pay for some work but said the owner was responsible for replacing tiles. The owner challenged that. The adjudicator noted the owner was obliged to maintain the balcony tiles, but there was no indication the tiles were not in good condition or were to be replaced for that reason. Rather, they were being removed to give access to the slab to apply the membrane. The adjudicator noted the committee had submitted that the balcony probably did not have a membrane, as other lots with similar problems were found not to have membranes. The committee had asserted the deterioration of the tiles and grouting had probably led to the problem but presented no evidence to support that claim. The adjudicator noted previous decisions in which the same approach had been taken.[29]

• [53] I have considerable concern about the adequacy of the communication and decision-making evidenced by the committee in this dispute. It appears to have pursued work to address water ingress to the car park without obtaining professional advice on the source or cause of that water ingress. It similarly appeared to have formed a view that the tiles on the Lot 50 balcony needed to be replaced before obtaining professional advice about those tiles. It appeared to have engaged a contractor to undertake work without actually passing a resolution to approve the work, the contractor, or the expenditure. And it purported to pass the invoice for most of the cost of the work onto the owners of Lot 50 long before resolving to do so.
• [54] I do not accept the assertion from the BCM (in response to my request for further information) that the body corporate did not need to pass a resolution to engage CFS because the lot owners engaged CFS. That conflicts with the submitted material, including statements in the committee's submission that the body corporate selected the contractor and approved the quote. And even if the owners had engaged CFS for all or some of the work, the body corporate does not dispute that it was at least responsible for the membrane works. So, it needed to pass a resolution to agree to that work and the associated expenditure.
• [55] From the submitted material I am satisfied the body corporate, or persons purportedly acting on behalf of the body corporate, engaged CFS to undertake the work that was undertaken in February 2025. Moreover, it seems tolerably clear that the body corporate pursued the work for the purpose of rectifying the water ingress into the common property basement, rather than simply to rectify the tiles on the Lot 50 balcony.
• [56] It was certainly appropriate for the body corporate to act to rectify the water ingress affecting the common property. But when it then sought to recover some of the cost of the work it organised from the owners of Lot 50, the body corporate needed to establish the work it was claiming for was actually necessary and was a responsibility of the owners. In this case the body corporate provided little or no evidence that the owners were liable for the cost of the tiling work either before organising the work or afterwards.
• [57] The power of a body corporate and its committee to make decisions and take action is limited by its statutory functions.[30] Regardless of what it considers fair or justifiable, a body corporate is only empowered to pass on costs to owners or occupiers or impose fees if there is a specific legislative power to do so.[31]
• [58] The liability for the work in this case arises from the reason for the work. It seems the reason was the water ingress. While it may be undisputed that the source of the water ingress was the Lot 50 balcony, no professional evidence was obtained on the cause of the water ingress.
• [59] The applicant queries whether there was an existing waterproof membrane under the tiles. It appears the absence of waterproofing was previously identified in other lots in the scheme. The tiling report in September 2024 said there was no waterproofing returning up the walls which suggested there was no waterproofing. The body corporate submission disputes this, claiming evidence of black tar waterproofing when the tiles were removed. The submission appears to be referring to a photograph provided by the applicant, but no clear evidence of waterproofing on the concrete slab is evident in that photograph or any other submitted material. The applicant suggests only remnants of adhesive are visible in this photograph. The CFS report did not comment on whether waterproofing was found or its condition.
• [60] But it is largely immaterial for present purposes whether a membrane had been installed on the balcony. If there was a membrane, that does not mean it was adequate[32] or was intact.[33] So, the existence of a membrane is not determinative of the cause of the water ingress.
• [61] Moreover, it seems the body corporate intended to install a waterproof membrane on the balcony (either over or under the tiles) regardless of the condition of the tiles. It does not dispute being responsible for the waterproofing work.
• [62] The body corporate claims it would have installed a membrane over the top of the tiles if the tiles had been in good condition, as it had apparently done in other lots. I have been given no evidence substantiate that claim. For example, I have no evidence the body corporate sought quotes to do so, or that any contractor advised that method of membrane application would be suitable to address the water ingress but for the condition of the tiles.
• [63] The two reports on the condition of the tiles on the Lot 50 balcony are very limited. The September 2024 report refers to drummy, unstable tiles and cracked and deteriorating grout. But it does not detail the extent of those issues, for example whether the entire area was affected or only part. The CFS report in March 2025, after the tiling work had been completed, also said tiles were drummy but did not say whether all tiles were drummy or only some. It said grout was cracked and missing in 'several areas' but did not explain the extent of the grout issues. But it said the 'overall condition' of the tiles was poor.
• [64] Despite that, the applicant provides a photograph of the balcony tiles apparently taken before the work commenced. Although not all the grouting can be clearly seen and drumminess would not be evident in a photograph, I can see no indication of cracked or missing grout or damage to the tiles in the photograph. Even the photographs recently provided by the BCM do not clearly evidence tiles or grout in poor condition.
• [65] As such, the body corporate did not demonstrate that the owners of Lot 50 failed to maintain the tiling on their lot in good condition. And to the extent that any tiles, adhesive, or grouting were not in good condition, the body corporate did not demonstrate the whole balcony needed to be retiled, rather than simply repairing affected tiles. I have insufficient evidence, and it does not seem that any evidence was given to the lot owners, that there was a requirement to replace all tiles on the Lot 50 balcony independent of any need to remedy the membrane.
• [66] Importantly, nothing in the two brief statements from the tilers indicates the condition of the tiles on the balcony caused the water ingress to the basement below rather than, for example, an absent, inadequate, or deteriorated waterproof membrane under the tiles. The reports also do not indicate that the condition of the tiles caused or contributed to any deterioration of any membrane under the tiles. The reports do not note any correlation between the location of any tiles in poor condition and any leaks. And, to the extent that any tiles or grouting were not in good condition, there is nothing in the reports to suggest that arose from inadequate owner maintenance rather than, for example, any absence, inadequacy, or deterioration of the waterproof membrane under the tiles. I understand that drummy tiles, for example, can be caused by a compromised waterproof membrane.
• [67] If the body corporate genuinely just wanted to apply a membrane over the balcony tiles but had professional advice that it could not because of the condition of the tiles, and if it asserted the owners were responsible or the condition of the tiles, it arguably had two options. It could have asked the owners of Lot 50 to repair or replace their tiles and take action against them if it did not. Or it could have specifically resolved to undertake tiling work on behalf of the owners, notifying the owners that it would do so and would recover the reasonable costs of the work from them as a debt. But instead, it simply proceeded to install a membrane in a manner that involved removing the existing tiles and then sought to invoice the owners.
• [68] I am not satisfied on the evidence that the tiles on the Lot 50 balcony were replaced to ensure the lot was maintained in good condition. On the evidence, I consider it more probable that the body corporate replaced the tiles to facilitate their replacement or installation of the waterproof membrane. In that circumstance, the body corporate was responsible for the tiling work.

• [69] The applicant bears the onus of proof in this application. But where the body corporate invoiced lot owners for work it organised and controlled, the body corporate had an obligation to establish the work was an owner responsibility.
• [70] Notwithstanding the inadequate body corporate decision-making, on the submitted evidence it seems probable that the body corporate elected to remove and replace the tiles on the Lot 50 balcony to enable it to apply a waterproofing membrane to address water ingress into the common property basement. The body corporate did not provide the owners with any cogent evidence the water ingress was caused by the condition of the balcony tiles. It did not submit such evidence in this application. To the extent that the tiles were not wholly in good condition, I have no evidence as that the entirety of the tiles needed to be replaced to ensure the lot was maintained in good condition. It is not even clear there was professional advice that the tiles needed to be repaired or replaced to enable a membrane to be installed over them if that was otherwise a viable solution to the water ingress issue.
• [71] I am not satisfied on the submitted evidence that the owners of Lot 50 were liable for the tiling works undertaken on their balcony in February 2025. Accordingly, I am satisfied the body corporate failed to act reasonably in purporting to pass the cost of the work onto the owners.[34]
• [72] Given my findings, I do not consider the amount invoiced to the owners of Lot 50 was an amount owing under the Act. Accordingly, this is not a debt dispute.
• [73] I have considered the particular the orders sought, particularly where the applicant is no longer an owner of Lot 50. I consider what would be most appropriate to resolve the dispute in the circumstances is to declare the body corporate is not entitled to charge any former or current owner of Lot 50 for the tiling works, that it must cancel the disputed invoice, remove any charge from the Lot 50 account, and cease any debt recovery action relating to that amount.
• [74] I see no utility in invalidating the committee resolution from 18 July 2024. While it may have been the intent, the minutes do not explicitly record a committee decision to hold the owners of Lot 50 responsible for the repair or replacement of tiles. Rather, the minutes just said the BCM would write to the owner to advise the tiles must be repaired or replaced (but did not say by whom or at whose expense) and then the body corporate would waterproof the surface. And clearly events since overtook that. Accordingly, while the substantive application has been successful, I will dismiss the balance.

[9] Sections 227, 228, 276 and schedule 5 of the Act

[13] The Body Corporate for The Grove CTS9356 v Comerford [2019] QCATA 172

[15] Sections 48C and 49C(4) of the Land Title Act 1994

[16] Section 211 of the Standard Module

[17] Section 180 of the Standard Module

[18] Section 180(2)(a) of the Standard Module

[19] Section 180(2)(b) of the Standard Module

[20] Searles DCJ in Klinger & Anor v Body Corporate for Costa D'Ora Apartments [2007] QDC 300 at 67

[21] Newton DCJ in Magog (No.15) Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for The Moroccan [2010] QDC 70 at 82

[22] Brereton J in Seiwa Pty Ltd v The Owner's Strata Plan 35042 [2006] NSWSC 1157, at para 4 and 5, cited in Magog (No.15) Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for The Moroccan [2010] QDC 70 at 83 and 84

[23] Section 180(5) of the Standard Module

[24] Section 222 of the Accommodation Module

[25] Noting section 281 of the Act, and James v Body Corporate for Aarons Community Title Scheme 11476 [2003] QCA 329, Klinger & Anor v Body Corporate for Costa D'Ora Apartments [2007] QDC 300

[26] Vardon Point Apartments [2017] QBCCMCmr 151, application reference 1115-2016

[27] Vardon Point Apartments [2017] QBCCMCmr 151, para 14(d)

[28] Vardon Point Apartments [2019] QBCCMCmr 659, application reference 0901-2019

[29] Klinger & Anor v Body Corporate for Costa D'Ora Apartments [2007] QDC 300 at 70 and 72; Columbia Tower [2009] QBCCMCmr 227; Oceans Mooloolaba [2019] QBCCMCmr 293, para 118; Stella Grande [2017] QBCCMCmr 556, para 29; Arti's Villas [2013] QBCCMCmr 330, paras 32-33; Park Avenue Terraces [2010] QBCCMCmr 512; Sanctuary Gardens [2007] QBCCMCmr 678

[30] See sections 94 and 95 of the Act.

[31] See for example Chevron Renaissance [2020] QBCCMCmr 358

[32] A membrane would usually extend up the sides of adjacent walls and may be inadequate if it does not.

[33] I understand membranes under tiles typically have a life of 10-15 years, and this scheme is over 24 years old, so it may not be surprising if any installed membrane had deteriorated.

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