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

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

REASONABLENESS - whether the committee acted reasonably in the circumstances when it decided not to call an extraordinary general meeting to consider motions proposed by a lot owner; EMERGENCY - whether an order should be made requiring the body corporate to hold an EGM on shortened notice.

Act, ss 100(5), 243A; Accommodation Module, ss 50, 76, 81

1. I declare that the committee failed to act reasonably when considering the applicant's request to call an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) so that the body corporate could consider and decide motions proposed by the applicant as the owner of a lot in the scheme.
2. I order that, within 5 business days of the date of this order, the secretary for the body corporate must either:

a) give written notice to all owners of an EGM to consider and decide the applicant's motions as provided to the body corporate on 30 June 2025 (Applicant's Motions), or > > b) give written notice to all owners of the annual general meeting (AGM) for the body corporate which notice must include the Applicant's Motions on the agenda for the AGM.

3. I further order that the EGM or AGM called to comply with the above order must be held at least 21 days' after notice of the meeting is given to the owners of lots and that the meeting must be held on or before 26 September 2025.
4. I further order that, if body corporate calls an EGM to comply with Order 2 above, the applicant is to bear, up to a maximum of $1,500, the reasonable administrative costs of the EGM.
5. The application is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] The dispute arises in the context of a body corporate that was intended to be developed progressively. The community management statement (CMS) for the scheme shows that it is intended that the undeveloped lot (Lot 900) be further developed into 20 lots.
• [2] The applicant is the owner of Lot 900. The applicant also owns the neighbouring property, which is not part of the scheme land. The applicant says it intends to develop both Lot 900 and the neighbouring property to build affordable units to meet the demand for affordable housing in South-East Queensland.
• [3] The applicant says in 2023, the body corporate approved its request to seek a new development approval for Lot 900. In 2023, the local council issued a new development approval authorising Lot 900 to be developed into 36 lots rather than the 20 originally intended. In 2024, the local council issued another new development approval for Lot 900 to increase the approved development from 36 to 45 new lots.
• [4] The applicant has obtained a commitment from the Queensland Government for funding assistance to develop affordable housing units on Lot 900 and additional units on the neighbouring (non-scheme) property. A condition of the funding commitment is that the works on the project commence by 30 September 2025.
• [5] The applicant has also entered into an agreement with a third party (Purchaser) who has agreed to acquire the 45 housing units on scheme land on a pre-construction, "off the plan", basis subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions is that Lot 900 be excised from the scheme so that the Purchaser can control the development. This would require the recording of a new CMS for the scheme. A second condition is that the body corporate grant an easement over parts of scheme land to enable flood-free access to the new development.
• [6] To proceed with the development and satisfy the Purchaser's conditions, the applicant wishes to propose two motions for consideration by the body corporate. Both motions can only be voted upon by the members of the body corporate at a general meeting.
• [7] In January 2025, the applicant says it provided draft motions to the body corporate seeking body corporate approval to excise its lot and consent to the grant of an easement over common property. In response to correspondence from the body corporate's lawyers, it says it subsequently responded to the committee's requests for additional information and documents. The applicant says it also offered to pay the reasonable legal costs should the body corporate wish to receive legal advice about the requested EGM and the proposed motion. It also offered to pay for the body corporate's administrative costs of convening the EGM.
• [8] The applicant says in April 2025, the secretary requested that the body corporate manager call an EGM so that owners could vote on the applicant's motion. However, the EGM was not called. Despite months of self-resolution, and the applicant initially paying for the body corporate's lawyers to review the motions, the applicant says the committee has still not called the requested EGM. The applicant asserts that the committee failed to act reasonably in either deciding not to call an EGM or by failing to make a decision about calling the requested EGM. The applicant says that the circumstances are urgent because it will lose the affordable housing concessions and it is facing rising costs due to the delays.
• [9] By this application, the applicant seeks 4 orders, including two declarations about the actions of the committee and an order that the committee call and conduct an EGM within two days so that the body corporate can consider the applicant's two motions.
• [10] The body corporate says it has agreed to include the applicant's motions on the agenda for the upcoming annual general meeting (AGM). However, no date for the AGM has been set.
• [11] For the following reasons, I have made the above orders.

• [12] Villas on Main CTS 42650 (Villas on Main) is a scheme with 12-lots and common property and it is located in Beenleigh. It was established in 2011 by registration of SP195472, a building format plan of subdivision, and the registration of a community management statement (CMS). The CMS shows the Accommodation Module applies.
• [13] The CMS, which remains unchanged since its original registration, shows that it is intended that the scheme be developed in stages, with Lot 900, that covers an area of 4,390 sqm, to be further subdivided by another building format plan at a later time. The intention in 2011 when the CMS was registered was that the further development would create 20 new lots from Lot 900 (to be numbered Lots 12 - 31) and be registered on SP 219596.
• [14] The CMS also states that it was intended that each of the new lots would become lots in the scheme and there would continue to be one body corporate, namely the Body Corporate for Villas on Main. Revised schedules for the contribution and interest schedule lot entitlements post further development of Lot 900 are also included in the CMS.

• [15] The applicant is the representative of Cedar Ridge Living Pty Ltd ACN 659 434 278 as trustee, which is the owner of Lot 900. Cedar Ridge Living Pty Ltd was formerly known as CMR Assets Pty Ltd ACN 659 434 278.
• [16] The respondent is the Body Corporate for Villas on Main.

• [17] The applicant made this application for final orders and requested that it be immediately referred to department adjudication because it related to emergency circumstances. The Commissioner was reasonably satisfied the application should be immediately referred to adjudication and so referred it pursuant to section 243A(1) of the Act.
• [18] Adjudicators have jurisdiction and power to make a range of orders to resolve disputes between defined combinations of persons about the exercise of rights or powers, performance of duties under, or a claimed contravention of, the Act or the CMS.[1] I am satisfied that this dispute is about whether the body corporate contravened the Act. Accordingly, I am satisfied it falls within the dispute resolution provisions of the Act and that I have jurisdiction and powers to make orders to resolve the dispute.
• [19] I investigated the dispute, including by reviewing the application, the CMS, and the survey plan.[2] I also provided the committee for the body corporate a brief opportunity to make a submission about the application and, pursuant to my powers of investigation, required them to provide certain information relevant to the issues in dispute.[3]

• [20] The applicant provided a history of the dispute. It says or provides documents that show:
  1. the applicant became the owner of Lot 900 in July 2022
  2. in January 2023, the committee resolved that the body corporate execute under seal the body corporate's consent for the owner of Lot 900 to lodge a development application with the local council to progress the development of scheme land
  3. in September 2023, development approval was received for Lot 900 to be subdivided into 36 lots, which was subsequently increased to 45 lots in April 2024
  4. the applicant now intends to develop Lot 900 into 45 affordable units, with a related entity to perform the construction works
  5. the applicant has received funding assistance, in the form of subsidised infrastructure charges, from the Queensland Government on condition the works be substantially commenced by 30 September 2025
  6. a Purchaser has agreed to acquire the 45 units on a pre-construction basis on condition that Lot 900 be excised from the scheme, and the body corporate consent to an easement to enable flood-free access to the development on Lot 900
  7. the applicant is also required to obtain an amended development approval and cause a new CMS to be recorded for the scheme
  8. in January 2025, the applicant provided motions for the body corporate to consider authorising the excise Lot 900 from the scheme and granting the requested easement
  9. in response to correspondence from the body corporate's lawyers, it agreed to pay the body corporate's reasonable legal fees relating to the applicant's request and its proposed motions
  10. the applicant paid some of the fees invoiced by the body corporate's lawyers and has provided information and documents requested by them
  11. by letter dated 30 April 2025, the applicant formally requested that the committee call an EGM so that the body corporate could consider its motions
  12. on 30 April 2025, the secretary instructed the body corporate manager to schedule and call an EGM
  13. by letter dated 15 May 2025, the applicant requested the committee call an EGM and
      1. confirmed it agreed to pay the body corporate's reasonable (administrative) costs of convening the EGM
      2. noted it had paid the body corporate's costs of reviewing the motions but did not agree to pay invoices for legal costs incurred by the body corporate in March and April 2025 until it was satisfied those were reasonably incurred, and
      3. that it would not pay further legal costs for the body corporate's review of its motions
  14. it has concerns that, despite paying the body corporate's legal costs to review the motions and information provided, some months later it was yet to receive a substantive updated response
  15. the committee has either decided not to call an EGM or has not made a decision about calling an EGM, and
  16. there is evidence to suggest the committee has not considered the information and documents provided in response to the body corporate's lawyers' requests.
• [21] The applicant says the only issue in dispute is whether the committee, complying with its duties to act reasonably and in good faith, should have exercised its discretion and called an EGM. Although the committee was not compelled to call an EGM, the applicant contends that:

1. the committee was required by section 50 of the Accommodation Module to make a decision whether to exercise its discretion and call the requested EGM 2. when deciding whether to exercise its discretion, the committee was obligated to act reasonably by considering factors relevant to the calling of an EGM including that: 1. only the members voting at a general meeting could decide the motions 2. the body corporate would not incur any material costs in circumstances because the applicant had offered to pay the administrative costs of calling an EGM 3. calling the EGM would have appropriately balanced the interests of the applicant and the other lot owners in the scheme, and

1. individual members of the committee were obligated to comply with the Code of Conduct for voting committee members but failed to do so.

• [22] The applicant seeks 4 orders, which can be summarised as follows:

Order 1 - a declaration that the committee failed to carry out its functions and failed to act reasonably in considering the applicant's request that an EGM be called so that the applicant's motions could be considered

Order 2 - a declaration that the members of the committee did not act in good faith and without negligence when carrying out their functions and are therefore not immune from civil liability

Order 3 - the decision of the committee to decline the applicant's request for an EGM to be called be set aside

Order 4 - that, within 2 days, the committee convene and conduct an EGM so that members of the body corporate can consider the applicant's proposed motions.

• [23] Whilst acknowledging that adjudication is to be conducted according to the rules of natural justice, the applicant asks that the orders be made expediently to resolve the dispute because the evidence submitted shows the applicant:
  1. will suffer significant financial loss and damage if it cannot proceed with the development, including loss of the government infrastructure charges concession, and
  2. is at risk of incurring further financial losses in the form of increased construction and holding costs which are potentially significant.
• [24] Regarding the order sought that the body corporate be required to hold an EGM, the applicant says the usual notice period for the calling of an EGM should be shortened because the effluxion of time will be prejudicial to the applicant.

• [25] The committee, through the body corporate manager for the scheme, provided the information required by my investigations. The committee confirmed that:
  1. on 15 May 2025, the applicant had offered to pay the body corporate's reasonable costs to convene an EGM
  2. the administrative costs to convene an EGM for the scheme were approximately $1,000 - $1,500, and
  3. excluding the applicant, 10 lots have elected to receive notices via email, and the remaining 1 lot has elected to receive notices by post.
• [26] The committee also advised that on 30 June 2025 it received correspondence from the applicant submitting motions for inclusion on the agenda at the next AGM. It says it has resolved to include those motions on the agenda for its upcoming AGM.
• [27] In response to my invitation to comment on the application, the committee says it advised the applicant on 21 May 2025 that it would not agree to call an EGM unless and until the applicant:
  1. paid the invoices for the body corporate's legal costs for March and April 2025
  2. made a further trust deposit of $2,500 to its lawyers
  3. confirmed it would bear the body corporate's administrative costs to call an EGM; and
  4. addressed the body corporate's concerns in respect of the revised documents and/or proposed development.
• [28] The committee also says it confirmed that the body corporate would only instruct its lawyers to review and advise on the applicant's revised documents if the applicant attended to the outstanding invoices. The committee maintains generally that it has acted reasonably in addressing the applicant's request. It says it has balanced the applicant's rights with the body corporate's obligation to ensure its costs are recovered and its obligation to ensure that any revised documents are properly reviewed before being presented to owners.
• [29] The committee also requested an opportunity to make a comprehensive submission before final orders were made.
• [30] In response to my subsequent enquiries, the body corporate manager advised that the body corporate was in the process of finalising its financial accounts for the financial year just ended. The manager also confirmed that the body corporate had not yet set a date for its AGM but she anticipated that the AGM would be called within the next 30 days.

• [31] Members of the body corporate are entitled to submit motions for the committee or the body corporate to consider. In the present case, the applicant wanted to do both. The applicant asked the committee several times, and unequivocally on 15 May, to exercise its discretion to call an EGM so that the applicant could propose its motions to the members of the body corporate.
• [32] The only issue for determination in this application is whether the committee acted reasonably when it decided not to exercise its discretion to call an EGM. If I am satisfied the committee failed to act reasonably, I will then consider whether it would be just and equitable to make any of the orders sought by the applicant.

• [33] Motions to be determined by members of the body corporate must be decided at a general meeting. All meetings of the body corporate are general meetings. A general meeting is either an AGM or an EGM.[4] There are a several procedural rules that apply to the calling of general meetings. For example, an AGM must be called and held within 3 months of the end of the body corporate's financial year.[5] For EGMs, a body corporate is required to call an EGM where certain conditions are met.[6] Alternatively, a committee may exercise its discretion and resolve to authorise a member of the committee to call an EGM.[7] In addition, an adjudicator may, by order, authorise or require a person to call a general meeting.[8]
• [34] A member of the body corporate may submit a motion for consideration at a general meeting of the body corporate at any time.[9] As one adjudicator has noted, the legislation does not require owner motions to be first approved by the committee before they are included on the agenda for a general meeting.[10] An owner motion is to be included on the agenda which accompanies the notice for the general meeting.[11] The voting paper must state the name and lot number of the person submitting the motion.[12]
• [35] The committee is responsible for setting the agenda for an EGM. Where it comes to including owner motions on the agenda, the committee's role is limited.[13] At the general meeting itself, the chairperson must rule the motion out of order (including owner's motions) in circumstances where, if carried, the motion would conflict with the Act, the regulations, or the scheme's by-laws_._[14] Even where an owner motion is ruled out of order, however, the persons present and entitled to vote may decide to reverse that ruling and proceed to vote on the motion.[15]

• [36] Both the committee and the body corporate have certain statutory and general duties, including an express statutory duty to act reasonably when making decisions.[16] As a result, when the committee is making decisions, including whether to exercise its discretion to resolve to authorise the calling of an EGM, it must act reasonably.
• [37] In Body Corporate For Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [17] (Beaches), the appeal tribunal of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal thoroughly explored the duties owed by a committee when it was exercising its discretionary decision making powers.[18] In Beaches, Carmody J explained a committee is subject to the statutory duty to act reasonably[19] and is also subject to other mandatory general law duties, including the duty to act in good faith, and the duty to make fully considered, rational and legally reasonable decisions that are not obviously absurd or plainly unjust.[20]
• [38] The statutory duty to act reasonably in making a decision requires a committee to evaluate relevant factors that have a bearing on the issue and to ignore irrelevant factors.[21] Which factors are relevant (or relevant) will depend on the circumstances and context of the scheme and the decision to be made.
• [39] In my view, when making a decision about whether to grant an owner's request that it call an EGM so that the owner can present motions for body corporate consideration, the relevant factors to be assessed include:
  1. the administrative costs of calling and holding an EGM
  2. who - the body corporate or the owner - will bear those costs, and
  3. timing of the EGM, including the time sensitivity of the proposed motions and whether the body corporate's AGM is imminent or not.
• [40] For that reason, where an owner has agreed to cover the administrative costs of an EGM, in my opinion, the nature of the motions to be proposed at the EGM, and committee's views on the merits of the motions or likelihood of the body corporate passing the motions will generally not be relevant to the committee's exercise of its discretion whether or not to call the EGM.

• [41] The primary issue for determination is whether the committee acted reasonably in deciding not to call an EGM in response to the applicant's requests.
• [42] After receiving the proposed motions from the applicant in January 2025, I am satisfied the lawyers for the body corporate correctly identified that the proposed motions could not be authorised by the committee but had to be determined by the body corporate at a general meeting.[22] In my view, it was not unreasonable for the body corporate to ask that the applicant bear the administrative costs of calling the necessary EGM.
• [43] However, in addition to asking that the applicant bear the costs of convening the EGM, in February 2025 the body corporate's lawyers suggested that the body corporate would incur costs relating to reviewing the motions to be proposed and opined that the applicant "ought to" also bear those costs.
• [44] Where an owner does not require the committee to second, support, or approve a motion before it is included on the agenda for a general meeting, I consider the suggestion that the applicant "ought to" bear the body corporate's legal costs was misconceived. Although the committee, as the representative of the body corporate might wish to seek legal advice prior to an EGM about a motion, including for the purposes of determining whether it should be ruled out of order, or to better understand the potential consequences of the motion, it does not strike me that such costs "ought" to be borne by the owner proposing the motion.
• [45] Nevertheless, it is understandable that in the circumstances, the applicant, with an interest in giving its motions the best chance of passing, agreed initially as a goodwill gesture to cover legal costs reasonably incurred by the committee acting on behalf of the body corporate.
• [46] In my view, the result of the suggestion that the applicant "ought to" cover the body corporate's legal costs and the applicant's initial agreement to do so was that the committee focussed on the wrong decision. Rather than assessing whether to exercise its discretion to call the requested EGM, the committee concerned itself with the potential views of owners voting at an EGM on the sufficiency of the supporting information and merits of the motions.
• [47] Indeed, there is evidence that the committee's decision about whether to call the EGM became conflated with the ultimate decision - to be made by body corporate members at a general meeting - about whether to pass the applicant's motions. For example, in March 2025, the lawyers for the body corporate stated: "[w]hile our client may be able to form a preliminary view of the proposal on the information provided, we require the outstanding information to be in a position to reasonably consider the approval of the motion."[23] In an email a week later, they referred to concerns about the sufficiency of the information provided about the proposed development and pointed to adjudicator's orders upholding decisions made by the body corporate at a general meeting not to pass motions.[24] These concerns, however, were not directed to the single decision for the committee, which was whether to call the EGM.
• [48] I am also satisfied that, in an effort to address the committee's concerns about the substance of the applicant's motions, the applicant sought meetings with the committee and its lawyers. Although one meeting was scheduled with the committee, it appears on the advice of the body corporate's lawyers, that meeting was cancelled.
• [49] I am satisfied that the applicant first proposed its motions in January 2025 and by 30 April it had formally asked the committee to call an EGM so the applicant could propose motions for consideration by members of the body corporate. I am also satisfied that by 15 May 2025, the applicant had confirmed it would pay the reasonable costs of convening the requested EGM.
• [50] Notwithstanding this formal request and confirmation that the costs of the EGM would be met by the applicant, on 21 May 2025, the committee advised that it would not agree to call an EGM until, amongst other things, the applicant paid all the invoices for the body corporate's legal costs and all of the committee's concerns about the development were addressed.

• [51] The only decision to be made by the committee was whether to exercise its discretion to call the requested EGM. The factors relevant to that decision were:
  1. the committee is not required to approve an owner's motion before including it on the agenda for a general meeting
  2. the applicant agreed to pay for the administrative costs for calling the EGM, and
  3. the committee had (at most) 12 weeks to consider the applicant's request an EGM be called and to decide whether to exercise its discretion to do so.[25]
• [52] In my opinion, where the applicant had offered to pay for the calling of the EGM, factors that were not relevant to the committee's decision about calling an EGM included:
  1. the committee's concerns about the sufficiency of information provided by the applicant to support the motions
  2. whether the body corporate legal expenses for considering the substance of the motions were reasonably incurred and payable by the applicant, and
  3. the committee's views on the likelihood of lot owners voting to carry the motion.
• [53] I am satisfied for the above reasons that the committee (guided by its lawyers) directed itself to consider the wrong question. It purported to require the applicant to "address any concerns raised by the body corporate with respect to the revised documents, or development" and to cover the body corporate's legal costs of reviewing those documents. By mis-directing itself to consider the sufficiency and merits of the applicant's motions, the committee pre-emptively formed a view that members of the body corporate might not support the motions.
• [54] It is my opinion, therefore, that the committee based its 21 May decision not to call the EGM on factors that were not relevant to the particular decision it was being asked to make. It also failed to adequately consider the factors that were relevant to its decision. Moreover, once satisfied that the applicant would pay for the convening of the EGM, in my view, in the circumstances, the only legally reasonable decision the committee could make was to call the requested EGM so that members of the body corporate could consider the applicant's motions.
• [55] Accordingly, I am satisfied the applicant has demonstrated that the committee failed to act reasonably in making a decision about calling an EGM.
• [56] In making these findings, I have considered that the application was referred to adjudication pursuant to section 243A of the Act and that the body corporate was therefore not invited by the Commissioner to make a submission about the application.
• [57] As part of my investigation, I did provide the committee with a copy of the application and a short period in which to make a submission. The committee confirmed its position was that it had acted reasonably in "balancing the applicant's rights with the Body Corporate's obligation to ensure its costs are recovered and that any revised documents are properly reviewed before being presented to owners." It also requested an opportunity to make a more comprehensive submission before final orders were made.
• [58] Legally, the committee was required only to decide whether to call the EGM or not, it did not have an obligation to review the applicant's motions or supporting documents before those were presented to owners. Where the committee was given an opportunity to provide comments[26] and has confirmed the factual basis for its decision not to call the EGM, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities a more comprehensive submission would not change my findings that the committee did not act reasonably and that the only legally reasonable decision the committee could have made in the circumstances was to call the EGM.

• [59] Where I am satisfied the committee contravened the Act by failing to act reasonably in making a decision about calling the requested EGM, I must next consider whether it is just and equitable to make the 4 orders sought by the applicant.

• [60] The applicant seeks a declaration that, by deciding not to call an EGM, the committee failed to carry out its functions and failed act reasonably.
• [61] For the reasons given above, I am satisfied the applicant has demonstrated that the committee failed to act reasonably in making a decision about the requested EGM and I have made the requested order.

• [62] Section 101A of the Act provides that individuals performing the role of committee member are not civilly liable for acts or omissions made in good faith and without negligence. The second order sought by the applicant is a declaration that the individual members of the committee should not be afforded the section 101A protection from civil liability.
• [63] The applicant, however, does not name any individual committee member as a respondent and does not identify with any specificity any act or omission by any particular committee member in contravention of their duties. I infer that the applicant is suggesting generally that the failure by the committee to act reasonably also amounts to a breach by each individual committee member of their respective individual duty to act in good faith and with the requisite duty of care towards the body corporate.
• [64] If that is the claim, it must be rejected. I consider that the evidentiary burden to deprive an individual committee member of a statutory protection from civil liability is necessarily higher than simply demonstrating generally that a committee failed to act reasonably.
• [65] The application does not supply sufficient evidence to discharge the higher burden. On its face, the application contains no evidence that any individual committee member failed to act in good faith. To the contrary, it can be reasonably inferred that the committee (and its members) were acting in a way they understood to be in the interests of the body corporate and its members. That the committee and its members may have misapprehended what was required to discharge their functions does not amount to bad faith. Nor does the application contain any evidence of negligence on the part of the committee or its members. Indeed, it is apparent the committee was acting on the advice of, and was guided by, the recommendations of its lawyers.
• [66] For these reasons, there is no basis on which to make the second order sought and I decline to make it.

• [67] The applicant also seeks a declaratory order vacating the decision of the committee to decline to call the EGM requested by the applicant. Where I am ordering the body corporate to call and hold a general meeting, I consider making the third order sought is unnecessary and would be superfluous. I thus decline to make such a declaration.

• [68] To resolve the dispute, the applicant asks that an adjudicator make an order that the body corporate must convene and conduct an EGM within two days. Where it is clear that the failure of the committee to decide to call the EGM has resulted in a significant delay in the body corporate considering the applicant's motions, I consider it would be contrary to the interests of natural justice to permit further delays in the body corporate considering the applicant's motions. For this reason, I have made an order that the committee call an EGM within 5 days of this order. Where the body corporate manager has confirmed that all but one owner receives notices by email, I am satisfied this short timeframe is appropriate and will not present an administrative burden to the body corporate.
• [69] I have also ordered that the applicant's motions, in the form provided to the committee on 30 June 2025, must be presented to owners at a general meeting that is held on or before 26 September 2025. Where the AGM for the scheme is due to be held shortly but has not yet been noticed, provided a general meeting is held on or before 26 September, my order enables the committee to elect whether the meeting is to be the AGM or an EGM.
• [70] In terms of notice for the EGM (or AGM), the legislation provides that a general meeting must be held at least 21 days after notice of the meeting is given to the owners of lots.[27] Although the applicant urges that I shorten this notice period, I do not consider the circumstances warrant such an order or that it would be appropriate to make that order.
• [71] Notwithstanding that there have been delays in the applicant having its motions presented to owners, in my view, given the nature of the motions themselves, it is important that the owners as the decision makers for the motions have sufficient time to review, consider them, and to be able to seek further information if they so choose. Although the applicant suggests it has suffered harm by the delays caused by the committee such that there is now increased urgency that its motions be decided expeditiously, I do not think in the circumstances it would be equitable to owners if the notice period - and therefore the time to consider the motions - was shortened from the statutory notice period of at least 21 days to the requested 2 days.

• [72] I have made orders for the reasons given above.
• [73] The members of the body corporate will now be asked to vote on the applicant's motions at a general meeting. To be clear, nothing in this order is intended, nor should be read, to influence the decisions of owners voting on the applicant's motions.
• [74] I note there were several instances in which the applicant and/or its lawyers asked to meet with the committee and/or its lawyers. There is some suggestion that a meeting was scheduled between the applicant and body corporate representatives for March 2025 but that the meeting was cancelled on the advice of the body corporate's lawyers. I remind the body corporate's lawyers that in the context of body corporate disputes, parties are generally encouraged to meet and to try to clarify their concerns and resolve their issues.
• [75] Finally, given the nature of these motions, the applicant may wish to renew its offer to meet with owners and/or the committee in advance of the general meeting.

[4] See Section 71 of the Accommodation Module

[5] See Section 73 of the Accommodation Module

[6] See Section 74 of the Accommodation Module. In this case, the applicant is not contending that the conditions for requiring an EGM to be called have been met.

[7] See Section 72(1) of the Accommodation Module

[8] See Section 72(2) of the Accommodation Module

[9] See Section 76(1)(b) of the Accommodation Module

[10] See e.g., Lake View [2021] QBCCMCmr 363 at [40]

[11] See Sections 77(3) and 83 of the Accommodation Module

[12] See Section 78(6) of the Accommodation Module

[13] The committee may need to decide whether an owner motion was received in time to be included on an agenda for an AGM and whether motions must be presented as a group of same-issue motions.

[14] See Section 88(1) of the Accommodation Module

[15] See Section 88(3) of the Accommodation Module

[16] See Sections 94(2) and 100(5) of the Act

[17] [2016] QCATA 177

[18] In Beaches, the committee was exercising a discretionary power under a by-law.

[19] Section 100(5) of the Act

[22] For schemes that are to be developed progressively, where specific conditions are met, there are some circumstances in which a body corporate might be compelled to agree to record a new CMS for the scheme. See e.g., Sections 29 and 57 of the Act; Covey Property Pty Ltd v MICDM Pty Ltd [2020] QCATA 47. The applicant does not suggest those conditions have been met here.

[23] See 17 March 2025 email from lawyers for body corporate

[24] See 24 March 2025 email from lawyers for body corporate citing Emporio Principal [2021] QBCCMCmr 198 and 161 Junction Road [2019] QBCCMCmr 632

[25] See Section 50 of the Accommodation Module and noting the applicant indicated a decision was urgent (see e.g., 21 May email from lawyers for applicant).

[26] In this regard, I am satisfied the body corporate has been afforded procedural fairness.

[27] See Section 81 of the Accommodation Module