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

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS - where the body corporate committee is alleged to be acting in response to a landslide on common property without passing proper resolutions and notifying owners; whether the body corporate should be prevented from taking any further non-emergency action prior to final orders.

Act, ss 94(2), 97, 279(1), 281, 287, 288; Standard Module, ss 55(3), 65, 66, 68(3), 69, 70, 71(2)(b), 72, 73, 86(1)(a), 91, 162(2), 163(1), 180(1), 186.

1. The body corporate must take no further action with respect to the landslide to the embankment alongside lots 6-10 that has not been properly authorised by resolution of the body corporate, recorded in minutes, and circulated to owners as set out in the Standard Module.
2. This interim order will remain in effect for one year, or until ended or amended pursuant to section 279(2) of the Act, whichever is sooner.

• [1] There is an unstable earthen embankment on common property alongside lots 6 to 10 that suffered a landslide after heavy rainfall associated with Cyclone Alfred in March 2025. An engineer from Earthsolve who inspected the site in April noted:

...the units are threatened by the degrading of the earth face of an 7m high earth cut at the rear of the property. > > The house is not considered 'safe' based on that observation. > > Immediate remediation is required, to avert danger...[pending] long term restoration...

• [2] Temporary water-filled barriers were installed to protect the units, but an enduring solution is required. A Building Compliance Officer and Senior Development Engineer from Gold Coast City Council who inspected the site in July noted strong indications of:

...ongoing instability and potential further movement. The Body Corporate must address the issue as soon as practicably possible.

• [3] An extraordinary general meeting (EGM) was held on 12 September 2025 to try to address the issue. The applicant, Ms De Vercelli of lot 4, is critical of the motions submitted to that meeting, but they all failed and are not challenged in the present application.
• [4] A further EGM on 17 November resolved to:
  1. engage a geotechnical engineer to carry out further investigations and provide recommendations for remediation (motion 3)
  2. appoint Mick Holton of lot 9 as the body corporate committee's liaison with contractors (motion 4)
  3. increase the relevant limit for committee spending to $1000 per lot ($10,000 total) (motion 5), and
  4. raise a special levy of $4,000 per lot ($40,000 total) "to cover anticipated costs of Geotechnical report and design phases of the project" (motion 6).
• [5] Ms De Vercelli argues that each motion is invalid for reasons discussed below, as is the entire EGM because the committee is failing to make decisions in compliance with statutory requirements. She says no committee meetings have been held in relation to the failed embankment, and no motions have been passed by vote outside a committee meeting. Yet common funds have been spent, a general meeting called, motions drafted, and quotations obtained and submitted to owners.
• [6] Ms De Vercelli argues the committee members would be unable to make lawful decisions in relation to the embankment if they tried, as they all occupy affected lots and therefore have a conflict of interest.[1]
• [7] She seeks final orders declaring the November EGM void and appointing an administrator "to restore lawful governance and decision-making processes". Until those issues can be resolved, she seeks interim orders to restrain:
  1. the implementation of motions 3a, 4, 5, and 6 of the EGM, and
  2. "the committee ... from making any decisions, giving instructions, or approving any expenditure in relation to landslip-related works (including geotechnical investigation, retaining structures, slope stabilisation or drainage works), except for emergency safety measures expressly required to prevent further damage..."
• [8] I am only concerned with the interim orders at this stage, which will be granted if warranted by the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[2] Ms De Vercelli must raise serious legal questions with prospects of success at final orders, and show that more inconvenience is likely to be caused by refusing the interim orders than granting them if the opposite conclusion is ultimately reached when final orders are made.

• [9] Ms De Vercelli is correct that the only way for a committee to make a body corporate decision is by voting on a motion.[3] That can occur at or outside a committee meeting, but in either case owners should be notified beforehand and the results should be minuted and distributed to owners afterwards.[4] That offers other owners oversight of the decisions being made on their behalf and gives them the opportunity to raise any concerns with the committee or formally oppose the decisions before they are implemented.[5]
• [10] The committee made a submission in opposition to the interim orders but did not address the claim that it is failing to make decisions in accordance with statutory requirements.
• [11] It is not evident at this stage that the actions taken by the committee do not have the support of a majority of committee members even though the correct procedures may have been neglected. Committee members may be consulting one another informally and reaching a common position before acting, yet failing to vote on motions and properly notify owners. The committee might retrospectively ratify any such decisions, curing their irregularity.
• [12] That is not to condone the failure to take the decisions properly in the first instance, if that is what is occurring. It sidelines owners and leaves them in the dark, creating greater scope for suspicion, conflict, and applications like the present. But it would be far worse if some individual on the committee was unilaterally spending common funds without the support of their committee colleagues.
• [13] For the purpose of the interim orders, it is sufficient to note that a serious legal question has been raised about the committee's decision-making. As yet, the committee has not attempted to answer it.
• [14] The suggestion the committee members suffer a conflict of interest with respect to the embankment is less compelling. It seems more a confluence of interest. The body corporate is required to maintain the common property in good condition.[6] No doubt the owners of lots 6-10 would like to see it meet that obligation so their homes are not damaged. If their homes were damaged because the body corporate breached its responsibility to keep the embankment in good condition, that would likely be to the body corporate's detriment as it could be forced to meet the cost of repairs.[7]
• [15] Aside from the question of whether the committee passed resolutions to call the 17 November EGM and prepare the agenda, Ms De Vercelli makes further specific criticisms of motions 3a-6 in support of her interim orders.

• [16] Ms De Vercelli argues the quotation selected pursuant to motion 3a was unilaterally obtained by the committee secretary/treasurer rather than the committee as a whole, and that the contractor was initially recommended by a firm that proposed $313,000 worth of earthworks and therefore may "manoeuvre" the body corporate back onto that "high-cost upgrade path" rather than "like-for-like repair".
• [17] But however the quotation came to be put to the EGM, it enjoyed strong support with seven votes in favour and only two against. All three committee members appear to have voted in favour of it, assuming that Ms De Vercelli and the owner of lot 3 (who is identified in the application as another opponent of the committee's approach to the embankment) voted against.
• [18] Even if the quotation was unilaterally obtained by the treasurer/secretary without committee involvement as alleged, an owner is entitled to submit a motion to a general meeting.[8]
• [19] The work authorised by motion 3a was limited to investigation and recommendations. I do not see how it could commit the body corporate to an expensive upgrade. But even if that is what the contractor ultimately recommends, the body corporate is entitled to improve the common property.[9] That possibility is not an irregularity.

• [20] Ms De Vercelli objects to the appointment of Mr Holton as the committee's liaison because:
  1. there was no explanation of why he was chosen or the scope of his role
  2. the owner of lot 2 was selected for the role at the September EGM because his lot is not threatened by the embankment, so he is impartial
  3. no committee records explain the change
  4. Mr Holton has a conflict of interest as he would benefit from an upgrade to the embankment rather than a repair, and
  5. the liaison may issue instructions to contractors without body corporate involvement, direction, or documentation.
• [21] I am struggling to see a prima facie legal case. In the same order:
  1. The motion was light on detail but there is no suggestion it was misleading. It was not a complex proposal. Mr Holton was to be the contact point between the committee and body corporate contractors. If owners were not persuaded that he was suitable, they were at liberty to vote against the motion or abstain.
  2. I do not see why the body corporate could not elect to appoint someone else later.
  3. That may be so, but the substantive decision was made at the EGM, not by the committee.
  4. I do not see how the owners of lots 6-10 would benefit from an upgrade to the embankment. Surely their only interest in the embankment is that it not damage their homes. If that could be achieved just as well by "like-for-like replacement", why should they prefer to incur the additional cost of a "high-cost upgrade"?
  5. The Act states: "A body corporate can not delegate its powers."[10] The liaison will have no power to make decisions on behalf of the body corporate. Motion 4 did not suggest otherwise.
• [22] Ms De Vercelli has not established any significant likelihood that motion 4 was unlawful.

• [23] Ms De Vercelli objects to the increase to the committee spending limit because:
  1. the explanatory note for the motion claimed the present limit was $500 per lot, while the notice for the September EGM claimed it was $200
  2. the motion sought to avoid general meeting oversight for significant expenditure, and
  3. the committee might undertake significant expenditure in increments of $10,000 without minutes or owner approval.
• [24] The body corporate is legally entitled to change the committee's spending limit by ordinary resolution,[11] which is what occurred. Irrespective of what the previous limit may have been, owners elected to increase it to $1,000 per lot.
• [25] It is not an irregularity that the increase will mean that committee spending below the new level will not require general meeting approval. That is the only point of such a change. The purpose of the relevant limit for committee spending is to determine the level of expenditure that will exceed the committee's discretion and require general meeting approval.[12]
• [26] The Standard Module states:

...if a series of proposals forms a single project, the cost of carrying out any 1 of the proposals is taken to be more than the relevant limit for committee spending if the cost of the project, as a whole, is more than the relevant limit.[13]

• [27] Thus, the committee is not at liberty to divide significant expenditure up into increments to avoid the limit irrespective of its value.

• [28] Ms De Vercelli points out that motion 6 is not supported by a specific budget or quotations. That is correct.
• [29] The motion said the "funds are to cover anticipated costs of geotechnical report and design phases of the project" (my underlining). The explanatory note unhelpfully added "the amount is to cover an item of expenditure previously agreed to at the meeting", even though the only expenditure authorised at the EGM was $5,400 to engage the geotechnical engineer pursuant to motion 3a. It seems the intention is to use the special levy to cover the geotechnical engineer and some of the subsequent work that will be required.
• [30] The body corporate must raise a special levy "if a liability arises for which no provision, or inadequate provision, has been made in the budget".[14] It is not disputed that the embankment needs work and the body corporate is responsible for it. Ms De Vercelli submitted body corporate financial documents reporting a balance of $6,789.35 in the sinking fund on 23 October 2025, scarcely enough to cover the geotechnical engineer let alone any of the other work that will be required to the embankment, or any other work of a capital nature that may be necessary at Villas Sanctuary. Hence, a liability has arisen and there is inadequate provision in the budget. A special levy is the appropriate response.
• [31] There is no specific statutory requirement for quotations or a specific budget when raising a special levy. The body corporate must simply act reasonably when exercising its functions.[15] The committee said it is looking to reduce future delays by raising the money now, which seems a sensible approach given the gravity of the issue. Owners must be given at least 30 days to pay contributions,[16] and 21 days' notice of a general meeting,[17] so if the body corporate waits until it has a quotation for the next stage of works before seeking to raise a special levy there will be a subsequent delay of at least 51 days before it has the money to proceed.
• [32] If $40,000 proves to be an overestimate, any unused money will remain in the sinking fund where it will offset future levies. It will not be lost to owners.
• [33] I do not see any significant likelihood I will accept that motion 6 should be deemed invalid simply because it was not accompanied by quotations or a budget.

• [34] There is a question to resolve about the committee's decision-making procedures. I am not otherwise satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out with respect to the validity of the November EGM or its resolutions.
• [35] The issues that have been raised do not warrant an interim order to prevent the committee from "making any decisions, giving instructions, or approving any expenditure in relation to landslip-related works" pending final orders. That could hold remediation of the embankment up for months longer despite the council's recommendation that the body corporate "address the issue as soon as practicably possible". It would prevent work such as that authorised by motion 3a, even though it has been properly authorised at a general meeting and is not tainted by any failure on the part of the committee to pass proper resolutions.
• [36] Instead, I will only order the body corporate to take no further action in response to the landslide unless it has been properly authorised by resolution of the body corporate, including being minuted and notified to owners as set out in the Standard Module. That imposes no inconvenience upon the body corporate as it only echoes existing legal requirements, while introducing the risk of enforcement and penalties if the body corporate should fail to comply.[18]

[4] Standard Module, ss 55(3), 68(3) & 71(2)(b).

[11] Standard Module, Schedule 1, "relevant limit for committee spending", paragraph (a).