Vietri [2025] QBCCMCmr 442 (9 December 2025)

Act, ss 94, 100, 183, 184.

1. The respondents, Paul and Dianne Alroe, must not, without the written approval of the body corporate or otherwise a relevant order of an adjudicator, park any vehicle on the common property.

• [1] The body corporate seeks an order that the respondent lot owners not park on common property or any part of another lot. The body corporate says such an act is a contravention of the scheme's by-laws.
• [2] The respondent lot owners do not deny that they are regularly parking on common property. However, they argue this is justified because their car parking spaces are experiencing leaks from the ceiling above, and the water is landing on their cars.
• [3] I have made the orders sought as:
  1. The by-law states an occupier of a lot must not park on common property, unless they have written approval to do so by the body corporate.
  2. It is not disputed that the respondents are occupiers who regularly park on common property.
  3. It is not disputed that the respondents do not have authority from the body corporate to park on common property.
  4. I am not satisfied the body corporate has acted unreasonably in deciding to enforce the by-laws against the respondents.
• [4] Notably, I have not made an order that the respondents not park in other people's car parks. This does not mean that there is no issue with this. This is simply because:
  1. The survey plans suggest those areas form part of each lot owner's private property, where By-law 2(1)(i) relates to common property.
  2. The materials in front of me do not clearly show that the respondents are parking in other lots, so I have not considered if this would be a contravention of By-law 3(b).
• [5] For the avoidance of any doubt, this application has not called for me to decide:
  1. Whether the body corporate has acted reasonably in any decision regarding any request the respondents may have made to receive written approval park on the common property. I have only determined the reasonability of the body corporate's decision to bring this application to enforce the by-laws, based on the material currently in front of me.
  2. Whether the respondents should be compensated due to the water leaking onto their cars.
  3. Whether the body corporate should extend the ceiling drip tray across the whole of their lot's parking area.
  4. Whether the body corporate should be ordered to undertake various maintenance and repair works at the scheme.
• [6] It is open to the lot owner to pursue those matters if they so wish.

• [7] The application is brought by the body corporate against the owners of Lot 1 in the scheme.

• [8] The scheme is comprised of 4 lots and common property. The survey plans show it is a building format plan. On the basement level, there are areas on title for each lot. Lot owners park their vehicles in these areas on the basement level.
• [9] The community management statement (CMS) shows that the Standard Module applies.

• [10] The body corporate seeks the following final order:

The Veitri Body Corporate is seeking an order that the respondents immediately cease parking in the common area and the designated Visitors carpark (V1) and commit to not again parking in the common area, the Visitors carpark or the carparks assigned to other Lot owners' without prior permission.

• [11] Submissions were received from the respondents who oppose the application, as well as two other lot owners in the scheme who support the application.

• [12] The body corporate takes issue with the respondents regularly parking on common property. The body corporate says there is only visitor car park at the scheme, and the respondents have two cars which they regularly park in the visitor bay, and another area of common property which makes it difficult for other occupiers to park their vehicles. The body corporate argues this behaviour is in contravention of the following by-laws:

2. VEHICLES > > (1) The Occupier of a Lot must not, without the Body Corporate's written approval:- > > (i) Park a vehicle, or allow a vehicle to stand, on the common property; ... > > 3. OBSTRUCTION / NUISANCE ... > > (b) An occupier must not cause a nuisance or act in such a way so as to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of a person lawfully on another Lot or using the Common Property.

• [13] The body corporate appears to acknowledge that there may have been water dripping from the ceiling of the respondents' lot basement area in the past. The body corporate says it has fixed the cause, which it says was a leaking pipe, and installed a drip tray to part of the ceiling above where the respondents park one of their cars.

• [14] The body corporate may only pursue a dispute about alleged by-law contravention where it has given the respondent a contravention notice subject of the dispute.[1] The body corporate issued a 'notice of continuing contravention of a body corporate by-law' to the respondents.[2] A 'notice regarding likely future contravention of a body corporate by-law' may have been more appropriate in the circumstances.[3] However and ultimately, I am satisfied the body corporate may pursue the matter as a contravention notice was issued, the respondents were aware of the relevant by-laws the body corporate believed were being contravened, were aware of the alleged contravening conduct, and were aware that if the conduct continued the matter may progress to the Magistrates Court or adjudication.

• [15] The respondents have not disputed that they are occupiers within the scheme, and have not disputed that they park vehicles on common property. There is no suggestion from the respondents that they have approval from the body corporate to do so.
• [16] The respondents argue it is not practical or reasonable for them to park anywhere else but on the common property, because they say their car park is experiencing water ingress from the ceiling above. They say the water is dripping onto their cars and is causing damage.
• [17] The respondents say despite the body corporate's installation of the tray and other works, the issue is continuing, and the cause of the ingress is the body corporate's responsibility to fix. The respondents argue I should make various orders relating to compensation for damage to their vehicles, installation of a larger drip tray over their car parking area, rectification of all water ingress issues throughout the scheme, and repair of damage to a foyer area.
• [18] However, this is not an application against the body corporate. I am only called to consider whether the order sought is justified. Namely, whether the respondents are contravening the by-laws when they park their vehicles on common property. The Act only provides that I may make an order that contains ancillary or consequential provisions.[4] I do not consider that the intervention sought by the respondent would fall into this category.
• [19] While I will consider the implied defence that the body corporate has acted unreasonably in bringing this application, the remainder of the issues the respondent raises would need to be pursued separately by the respondents. This includes any potential argument that the body corporate may have acted unreasonably in any refusal to give approval to park on the common property.
• [20] If the respondents wish to pursue those other matters, it is open to them to do so.

• [21] On the materials in front of me, it is clear that the respondents are regularly parking on common property where they do not have body corporate approval to park in such a way. It is also clear from the submissions that the respondents intend to continue to park in this manner.
• [22] I am therefore satisfied the respondents are regularly in contravention of By-law 2(1)(i) by parking on the common property, and are likely to do so again. As an order is justified pursuant to By-law 2(1)(i) it is not necessary for me to consider By-law 3(b), in relation to parking on the common property.
• [23] The order the body corporate seeks also includes that the respondents not park within other lots. While it is possible that this behaviour may be captured by By-law 3(b), concerning nuisance, there is little evidence in front of me to suggest that the respondents are parking in other lots, so I will not consider that matter further. This is not to say that it would be acceptable for the respondents to park in other lots. I note the body corporate is of the understanding that, as these areas remain part of a lot's private property and not common property, such action by the respondents may constitute trespass and lot owners may take appropriate action.
• [24] Insofar as the respondents impliedly raise an argument that the body corporate is acting unreasonably in bringing this application, I am not satisfied of this, based on the materials currently in front of me.
• [25] The body corporate and its committee must act reasonably,[5] and must make legally reasonable decisions.[6] Acting reasonably in decision making involves considering all relevant factors, and disregarding irrelevant ones.[7]
• [26] When determining if a decision is reasonable, it is not for me to simply supplant the body corporate's decision with my own, nor is it my role to weigh up the options and choose the one that I think is best. My role is to firstly assess the decision-making process and whether the body corporate has failed to consider any relevant factors or relied on irrelevant factors. Importantly, there may be more than one reasonable decision that could be made on the same set of facts.[8] If there is no defect in the decision-making process, then the decision of the body corporate will stand unless I find the outcome of the decision is legally unreasonable. A legally unreasonable decision is one that is not conflicted, arbitrary, absurd or plainly unjust.[9]
• [27] The respondents have not explained how the committee have relied on irrelevant factors in pursuing by-law enforcement. Insofar as the respondents have impliedly argued the committee failed to take into account the water ingress issue and damage to vehicles, the respondents have not provided persuasive evidence that this is still taking place. The photos the respondents submit appear to show water damage to the car park, but these materials do not make it clear that that this is ongoing and constant rather than historic. In any event, the respondent has not addressed how it is not reasonably open to the committee to seek to enforce by-laws where there is only 1 visitor car park at the scheme, and other occupier vehicles are obstructed when the respondents park a second vehicle elsewhere on common property.

• [28] I am satisfied an order is justified to stop the respondents from parking on the common property, unless they receive approval from the body corporate to do so. I will also leave open the possibility for an order of an adjudicator to allow same, should the respondents pursue their own application, including interim intervention, in relation to approval to park on common property.

[1] Act, s 184(2). There are some exceptions where the dispute may still be pursued. See Act, s 186.

[6] Body Corporate For Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at [34].

[7] Body Corporate For Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at [42].

[8] Body Corporate For Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at [47] citing Woden Valley Glass v Psaila (1993) 122 ALR 378, 391.

[9] Body Corporate For Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at [34].