//
austlii:qld/QBCCMCmr/2026/58
General information, not legal advice.
QBCCMCmr
2026-02-27
Original judgment source is linked above.
Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), sections 227and 229(3)(a)
Body Corporate and Community Management (Small Scheme Module) Regulation 2020 (Small Scheme Module)
[1] Wattle Street Kallangur consists of two lots and is regulated by the Small Scheme Module. The Community Management Statement states that the by-laws in Schedule 4 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 apply to this scheme.
[2] On 26 February the owner of lot 1 lodged this application seeking the following outcomes:
An interim emergency order due to ongoing unauthorised works being carried out by the occupier of Lot 2, without consent on Common Property. Breaches to the Common property include but are not limited to Entry without Notice to perform works on Common Property involving Drilling and instalment of Fixtures, Structure, Electrical conduits and Cameras on and within Common Property.
We are requesting that all unapproved alterations to the Common property be returned to its original condition and due to the recent risk of Asbestos exposure a make safe will need to be done as per WPHS direction.
[3] The owner of lot 2 previously lodged a dispute resolution application with this Office sought the following outcome:
A formal order permitting me to relocate my power supply from the Unit 1 side to my side of the property, in accordance with the electrician's quote and the understanding reached during the conciliation process.
[4] The owner of lot 2 stated that an order was required to ensure ongoing access to electricity and to prevent future interference or threats of disconnection. She stated that since purchasing her property in April 2022, she has experienced difficulties accessing the main power box, which is located on common property on the lot 1 side. She stated that despite numerous requests, access has been refused on numerous occasions. Lot 1 also keeps a dog in the area of common property adjacent to lot 1, which is usually not restrained. Therefore, for safety reasons, she is unable to enter that area unless the dog is restrained.
[5] In around April 2023, her power supply was switched off twice - first from 7:03 pm to 7:28 pm, and again from 7:34 pm to 7:40 pm. She engaged an electrician to inspect the issue, but entry was refused, preventing access to the main power box.
[6] While the owner of lot 2 does have a sub-board on her side of the property, the main power supply and meter remains located on common property on Unit 1's side.
[7] To ensure ongoing access to electricity and to prevent future interference, the owner of lot 2 previously engaged an electrician to relocate her power supply from the Unit 1 side to her side of the property and agreed to cover all associated costs. The electrician confirmed that the job is straightforward and would cause minimal disruption to Unit 1 at the site visit. However, she says the owners of lot 1 had refused to allow this to proceed.
[9] It is evident that on 18 February 2026 the owner of lot 2 advised the applicant as follows:
I understand whole heartedly your position of having work commitments and the preference on work dates. I have the same adjudicators order document from the 30th of January notifying the date of works to be carried out on the 27th of February. My understanding of this order is that only 7 days' notice was required to be given for all parties to make the necessary arrangements for the day, we have been given almost a month.
As previously discussed with you during out phone call, I am happy to bring my generator with me on the day if we need to maintain power for office equipment, you said that was not necessary as you already had one. Please do let me know if you would like me to bring mine with me.
The scope of works for Friday the 27th is to disconnect power entering the premises, remove the meter and main switch from the current main switchboard and relocate to a newly installed switchboard in unit 2. The cabling between unit 1 and unit 2 will be replaced, within the existing conduit. No cabling alterations will occur on the consumers side of the main metering link within Unit l's switchboard. No works will affect solar connections. Reinstate power to the property.
[10] It is my understanding that these works commenced today, the 26th of February and will be completed on the 27th of February. As stated, these works are to relocate her power supply and power board from outside lot 1 to a location outside lot 2, as referred to in the quote from JY Industries dated 4 September 2025.
Breaches to the Common property include but are not limited to Entry without Notice to perform works on Common Property involving Drilling and instalment of Fixtures, Structure, Electrical conduits and Cameras on and within Common Property, and
We are requesting that all unapproved alterations to the Common property be returned to its original condition and due to the recent risk of Asbestos exposure a make safe will need to be done as per WPHS direction.
[12_] Section 276(1)_ of the Act provides that an adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances (including a declaratory order) to resolve a dispute, in the context of a community titles scheme, about-
(a) a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the community management statement; or
(b) the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under the Act or the community management statement; or
(c) a claimed or anticipated contractual matter about-
(i) the engagement of a person as a body corporate manager or service contractor for a community titles scheme; or
(ii) the authorisation of a person as a letting agent for a community titles scheme.
An order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting, in a way stated in the order (section 276(2)). An adjudicator's order may contain ancillary and consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate (section 284(1)).
[13] Further, section 279 provides that:
(1) The adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates.
Examples
1. The adjudicator may stop the body corporate from carrying out work on common property until a dispute about the irregularity of proceedings has been investigated and resolved.
2. The adjudicator may stop a general meeting deciding or acting on a particular issue until it has been investigated and resolved.
(2) An interim order
(a) has effect for a period (not longer than 1 year) stated in the order; and
(b) may be extended, varied, renewed or cancelled by the adjudicator until a final order is made; (c) may be cancelled by a later order made by the adjudicator; and
(d) if it does not lapse or is not cancelled earlier, lapses when
(i) the application is withdrawn; or
(ii) the commissioner gives the person who made the application a written notice under section 241 rejecting the application; or
(iii) a final order is made by an adjudicator to whom the application is referred. ...
[14] The only issue at this time is whether an interim order is warranted. Any order granted must be just and equitable.[1] An interim order will not be granted unless it is necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances.[2] The examples in the Act indicate the usual circumstances where an interim order might be made are in the nature of injunctive relief. An applicant must establish that the circumstances warrant an interim order. An interim order will not be made if the only urgency is a desire to expedite the dispute.
[15] In order to make an interim order, an adjudicator must be satisfied an applicant has established that it has a prima facie case[3] and the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief.[4] That is, an adjudicator must balance the inconvenience of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused, against the inconvenience of refusing relief now if final orders are ultimately granted. Of particular relevance is evidence an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm.
[16] The case of SDW2 Pty. Ltd. V JLF Corporation Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 1 provides some guidance as to when it would be appropriate to make an interlocutory injunction at paragraph [21]:
The legal principles governing the disposition of an application for interlocutory injunction were discussed by me in Stacks Managed Investments Ltd v Tolteca Pty Ltd [2015] QSC 234 at 3 to 5 and again in Tribal Health Pty Ltd v Flush Fitness Pty Ltd [2016] QSC 103. In the latter case I summarised relevant principle in these terms (at [23]):
(a) The law in Australia has long regarded it to be necessary to make two main inquiries: (i) whether the applicant has shown that it has a prima facie case; and (ii) whether the applicant has shown that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the relief claimed.
(b) The significance of the requirement that a prima facie case be shown is elaborated upon in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 572 and Live Earth Resource Management Pty Ltd v Live Earth LLC [2007] FCA 1034 at [11] to [13].
(c) The considerations brought to bear on the balance of convenience requirement were the subject of discussion in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill and Bowen Central Coal Pty Ltd v Aquila Coal Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 334, the latter case clarifying that the adequacy of an award of damages and the question of the sufficiency of the usual undertaking were to be considered as part of the totality of the balance of convenience question.
(d) The progression of the two main inquiries is not a mechanical exercise. Whether the relief sought is prohibitory or mandatory, the Court should take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to have been "wrong" in the sense of granting an injunction to a party who fails to establish his right at an ultimate trial, or in failing to grant an injunction to a party who succeeds at trial. In making that decision, the Court should weigh in the balance all relevant factors, including matters pertaining to the strength of the case to be tried and the balance of convenience.
(a) there are urgent circumstances.
(b) there is a prima facie case of sufficient merit to justify relief; and
(c) the balance of convenience between the parties justifies the order.
[18] I am of the view that the applicants in this matter do not have a prima facie case of sufficient merit to justify relief, and the balance of convenience between the parties does not justify making the requested interim order.
[19] As stated above, on 30 January I made the following orders:
[20] The owner of lot 2 has now engaged an electrician to relocate her power supply from the Unit 1 side to her side of the property at her own cost. The job is relatively straightforward, involving disconnecting power entering the premises, removing the lot 2 meter and main switch from the current main switchboard and relocate them to a newly installed switchboard in unit 2.
[21] It is my understanding that the work is being undertaken in lot 2 and common property and access to lot 1 is not required. Therefore notice under section 163 of the Act may not be strictly required. Nevertheless, the owner of lot 2 has given notice of the proposed works to lot 1.
[22] Photographs provided by the applicant show work undertaken so far including one instance where appears to be 25mm conduit runs through fibre cement soffit sheeting into the roof void.
[23] The applicant claims that the electrician has "drilled the asbestos without proper control measures" and "has accessed the roof space and installed electrical cables without properly de energising the building." However apart from an online "Complaint about Work Health and Safety or Electrical Safety Issue" to which there would not appear to be any reply_,_ I have not been provided with any evidence of the above_.[5]_
[24] Also, as the work has been largely completed, the balance of convenience does not favour making the requested interim orders.
[25] For the above reasons the application for an interim order is dismissed.
[26] The application for final orders remains outstanding. This application will now be administered in accordance with the Act and the normal processes of this office. Submissions will be sought from the Respondent and affected parties before final orders are made.
[1] Section 276 of the Act
[2] Section 279 of the Act
[3] Also described as a serious question to be tried.
[4] SDW2 Pty Ltd v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 001
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats [2001] HCA 63
[5] I also note that this scheme was registered on 15 March 2005
(2006) 227 CLR 572