Wenhui Wang and Anor v Body Corporate for Central Approach [2025] QCAT 392

(a) (by motion 2, ordinary resolution without the use of proxies to be determined by secret ballot) to terminate the Management Agreement and to authorise the committee to give effect to that termination;

(b) (by motion 3, ordinary resolution) subject to the passing of the motion to terminate the Management Agreement, to terminate the Letting Agreement and to authorise the committee to give effect to that termination.

(a) twenty-one (21) of the twenty-three (23) lot owners by email at 12:37pm on 21 November 2023, as those owners had nominated and notified the body corporate of an email address, as being part of their address for service; and

(b) the remaining two (2) lot owners, including Mr Wang by post .

• [7] At the EGM, the Body Corporate passed the motions to terminate the Management and Letting Agreements and by letter dated 12 February 2024 those agreements were terminated.
• [8] On 1 September 2024 the Applicants filed a Complex Dispute Application) seeking the following relief:

(a) a refund of $15,513.77 in legal fees levied by the body corporate;

(b) the return of personal belongings stored in the tool shed;

(c) request to re-sign the terminated service contract;

(d) compensation for the salary that was suspended due to the termination of service contract;

(e) compensation for "post-traumatic stress disorder" and "depression" and suffered losses from the car accident.

• [9] On 20 February 2025 the Body Corporate filed an application for miscellaneous matters to dismiss, or part or parts thereof, alternately to strike out, or part or parts thereof, the Complex Dispute Application and for directions (Section 47 Application).
• [10] Directions were made on 13 March 2025 to determine the Section 47 Application on the papers.

• [11] The Tribunal is a creature of statute and is an inferior court of record.[1] As such it has no inherent jurisdiction. As such, the jurisdiction of QCAT comes from the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) and what are referred to in the QCAT Act as enabling Acts.
• [12] Section 9(3) of the QCAT Act provides

Without limiting the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, section 49A, an enabling Act confers jurisdiction on the tribunal to deal with a matter if the enabling Act provides for an application, referral or appeal to be made to the tribunal in relation to the matter.

• [13] Section 49A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) provides:

If a provision of an Act, whether expressly or by implication, authorises a proceeding to be instituted in a particular court or tribunal in relation to a matter, the provision is taken to confer jurisdiction in the matter on the court or tribunal.

• [14] The enabling Act is the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (the BCCM Act), establishes jurisdiction for the Tribunal to determine the dispute, and in particular s149B of the BCCM Act..

149B Specialist Adjudication or QCAT jurisdiction

(1) This section applies to a dispute about a claimed or anticipated contractual matter about -

(a) the engagement of a person as a body corporate manager or caretaking service contractor for a community titles scheme; or

(b) the authorisation of a person as a letting agent for a community titles scheme.

(2) A party to the dispute may apply -

(a) under chapter 6, for an order of a specialist adjudicator fo resolve the dispute; or

(b) as provided under the QCAT Act, for an order of QCAT exercising the tribunal's original jurisdiction to resolve the dispute.

• [15] The term "dispute" in this context is defined relevantly as a dispute between -

(d) the body corporate for a community titles scheme and a caretaking service contractor for the scheme; or

...

(f) the body corporate for a community titles scheme and a letting agent for the scheme; or

• [16] The term "contractual matter" is defined in Schedule 6 of the BCCM Act as follows:

contractual matter, about an engagement or authorisation of a body corporate manager, service contractor or letting agent, means -

(a) a contravention of the terms of the engagement or authorisation, or

(b) the termination of the engagement or authorisation; or

(c) the exercise of rights or powers under the terms of the engagement or authorisation; or

(d) the performance of duties under the terms of the engagement or authorisation.

• [17] The BCCM Act and Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020 (Qld) ('the Module') is the relevant legislation.
• [18] A body corporate may, if approved by ordinary resolution of the body corporate, terminate a person's engagement as a manager or service contractor, authorisation as a letting agent. If a service contractor fails to carry out duties under an engagement the body corporate may terminate the engagement. The body corporate must first give to the service contractor a remedial action notice. The notice must, among other things, set out details of the action sufficient to identify the duties the body corporate believes have not been carried out, and state that the person must carry out the duties within a specified period but not less than 14 days after the notice is given. If the service contractor fails to comply with the notice within the stated period, and approval is given by ordinary resolution of the body corporate, the body corporate may terminate the engagement.[2]
• [19] A body corporate must act reasonably in carrying out its functions under the BCCM Act and the community management statement.[3] The committee for the body corporate must act reasonably in making a decision. The test for what is reasonable is an objective one requiring a balancing of factors in all of the circumstances.[4]

• [20] Section 47 of the QCAT Act empowers the Tribunal to dismiss or strike out a proceeding, including the Application (or part thereof} if it is:

(a) frivolous, vexatious or misconceived;

(b) lacking in substance; or

(c) an abuse of process.

• [21] In Dunlop v the Body Corporate for Port Douglas Queenslander[5] Member Roney KC provided am extensive and detailed analysis of the principles to be applied in considering a summary dismissal of proceedings.
• [22] I also note the comments of Senior Member Endicott in Stallard v Alsun Aluminium Pty Ltd & Lee [6] where she observed:

Section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 has a valid role to play in ensuring that cases objectively lacking substance do not place a respondent in the position of having to devote time and resources to meeting a case that has little or no chances of succeeding. When considering whether to bring an early end to a case involving allegations of contravention of human rights, the tribunal must be satisfied that factors supporting the complainant having proper opportunity to establish a complaint have been clearly outweighed by factors involving fairness and justice to the respondent accused of conduct in circumstances which would not be capable of supporting a remedy as claimed.

• [23] The Applicant seeks relief in respect of four matters they are:

A refund of $15,513.77 in legal fees levied by the body corporate

• [24] It is not clear from all the material filed what is the origin of this claim. It appears to relate to a claim by or against the First Applicant relating to a bullying claim brought in the Fair Work Commission. The claim relates to legal fees which the First Applicant appears acknowledge some liability for but disputes the absence of detail and the right of the Body Corporate to include it in a Notice of Levy Contributions. Dated 20 May 2024. It appears then to have been accounted for in the settlement record relating to the sale of the First Applicant's unit.[7] Hence, he seeks a refund.

The return of personal belongings stored in the tool shed

• [25] This is self-explanatory and relates to a claim by the First Applicant for the return of assorted items that were left in the tool shed, presumably after he departed from the premises.

Request to re-sign the terminated service contract

• [26] This is essentially a claim to set aside the termination of the Service Contract following the EGM of the Body Corporate on 14 December 2023. The First Applicant acknowledges in much of the material that the Service Contract and Letting Contract is at an end but has developed a claim disputing the process leading up to the termination including an alleged failure to provide full and complete information to the members prior to the meeting and alleged non-compliance with meeting procedures and voting.

Compensation for the salary that was suspended due to the termination of service contract

• [27] This claim is dependent on the First Applicant succeeding on the preceding claim.

Compensation for "post-traumatic stress disorder" and "depression" and suffered losses from the car accident

• [28] This claim presumably relates to the termination of the Service Contract, but I am unsure of the relationship of the car accident.
• [29] The First Applicant has filed an application to resolve a complex dispute under s.149B of the BCCM Act. That limits the matters that can be considered to those defined as disputes and contractual matters. Only the "request to resign the terminated service contract" could possibly fall within the defined circumstances for bringing such an application. The other matters very clearly fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
• [30] Prima facie, the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to hear and determine whether the Service Contract was lawfully terminated. The difficulty for the First Applicant is that he has accepted the termination. That is apparent from the material.

• [31] The Body Corporate submits that there is no dispute, in that, both parties accept and acknowledge that the Caretaking Agreement is at an end.
• [32] The Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management determined this to be the case when the First Applicant sought Interim Adjudication on 11 June 2024. The Commissioner found that the First Applicant had no standing at the time of his application as he was neither a caretaker service contractor nor a letting agent.
• [33] The very nature of the application whereby the First Applicant seeks an order to re-sign the Service Contract indicates that the Contract was at and end.
• [34] In relation to the termination of the Service Contract the Respondent made the following submissions:

Firstly, albeit stated in different ways, the Applicants now contend that Mr Wang and many others neither received adequate notice of the EGM Notice nor adequate materials. The Applicants also refer to legal requirements (without specification) and to sections 45 and 47 of the BCCM Act in support, which are, with respect to the Applicants misplaced, irrelevant and of no assistance. Indeed, no legal requirements are identified; as such, little or no weight ought to be given to that bare, unsupported assertion. For completeness, as to the suggestions that sections 45 and 47 of the BCCMA impose an obligation on the Body Corporate to conduct negotiations or mediation before terminating, again, they are misplaced.

The contention that the Body Corporate did not give adequate notice cannot be reasonably maintained, such that, there are no reasonable prospects of this contention succeeding. The Applicants have put on no evidence as to when Mr Wang received the EGM Notice. All that is stated is a bare assertion that it was inadequate notice was given (whatever that means). The Applicants commenced the Complex Dispute in September 2024 following the termination of the Agreements in February 2024. Since then, they have compiled no evidence and secured no statements or evidence from whomever are meant to constitute the many others about inadequate notice.

Indeed, the only evidence before the Tribunal is compelling. A StrataVote report has been produced evidencing the precise minute at which twenty-one (21) of twenty-three (23) EGM Notices were emailed to lot owners at their addresses for service and a Bing report has been produced showing the remaining two (2) EGM Notices, including to Mr Wang, were posted. Indeed, the StrataVote report identifies that eleven (11) of the emails forwarding the EGM Notices were opened, eight (8) were clicked on and two (2) were left unopened and not clicked on, and the balance were sent. There is no sensible maintainable or reasonable dispute otherwise.

Even if, which is not admitted, the remaining two (2) EGM Notices were not given strictly as required by section 81 of the Accommodation Module, that, by itself, is not fatal to the validity of the motions passed at the EGM, nor does it, by itself, invalidate the meeting. (See the Wishart Decision[8] and Scholer Pty Ltd as Trustee v Gowland & Anor.[9]

Notwithstanding that, it is the position of the Body Corporate that it discharged its obligations under section 81 of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020 (Accommodation Module) and there is no evidence otherwise.

As such, the contention that inadequate materials were not provided with the EGM Notice cannot be reasonably maintained, such that, there are no reasonable prospects of this contention succeeding.

The Applicants suggest that it was necessary for the Body Corporate to include, what has been described as a RAN completion report dated 28 September 2023. There is no requirement to include that report. Complaints about its absence from the EGM Notice from a notice compliance perspective must fail.

Indeed, the only evidence before the Tribunal is from an experienced body corporate manager who says that the EGM Notice complied with all requirements imposed by the Accommodation Module, particularly those at sections 77, 78 and 80.

Secondly, and for the first time approximately thirteen months after the termination of the Agreements, the Applicants contend that lot owners were intentionally mislead by the absence of that report. Again, no evidence is advanced in support of that serious contention. The Body Corporate was under no obligation to provide that report to lot owners. That in itself cannot be misleading where the Body Corporate has otherwise complied with its statutory obligations.

Thirdly, the Applicants contend that they have submitted both arbitration and mediation applications opposing the termination resolution - they say those application are attached to the Email Submissions. No applications are attached.

Fourthly, the Applicants contend that as their completion report was not contested by the Body Corporate the termination was procedurally unjust.

The Body Corporate is under no statutory or other obligation to comment on whatever document the Applicants may have prepared in response to the RAN - here noting, that the remediation period in the RAN was 21 days after 8 August i.e. by 30 August 2023 and the completion report was prepared well after that date of compliance and by approximately four (4) weeks. The time for determining compliance is as identified in the RAN (i.e. by 30 August 2023), not a later date. There can be no controversy surrounding that.

Sixthly, there is a suggestion in the "key timeline of events" that the Applicants submitted a motion requesting the revocation of the termination decision. In truth and in fact, no motion was submitted. Indeed, no motion is included in the Applicants' email dated 10 January 2024. It includes, however, the following statement which the Body Corporate says supports its submissions which follow:

Lets all reply before. Let's reconcile

I am willing to withdraw my FWC application.

I commit to comply with all requirements of the Management Agreement and to cooperate fully with committee representatives

I promise to sell this business and the manager's house and exit peacefully if I have the opportunity.

I admit that I am a loser and ask for your forgiveness and help.

Australia's spirit of partnership is about helping and supporting each other.

Notwithstanding the above, the most recent protestations of the Applicants to the contrary in their Email Submissions there is no relevant dispute. A careful and considered reading of the various emails leads to that conclusion.

Nowhere in the Complex Dispute Evidence or the Statement of Evidence is there any material which suggests the existence of a relevant dispute. What can be immediately seen however is:

(a) an acknowledgement that the Agreements are at an end;

(b) a request that the Body Corporate enter into new agreements see, for example this statement from the Applicants email dated 2 April 2024:

If you agree I am willing to take up the role of caretaker again. I hope you can provide me with an opportunity to work,

(c) an acknowledgment by the Applicants that the Agreements were at an end -

See the submissions of the Applicants in their Statement of Evidence (page 3 of (8) where they are advancing reasons why the terms of the Management Agreement no longer apply:

Invalidity of Service Contract Terms: According to the termination notice, the original service contract terms no longer apply to new fees incurred.

(emphasis added)

• [35] I accept the submissions and have read the referred emails. I have included the Body Corporate's submissions in full for the sake of completeness but I am satisfied that the Applicants have not established that there is a dispute so they do not get past first base.
• [36] I dismiss the application

[4] Luadaka v Body Corporate for the Cove Emerald Lakes [2013] QCATA 183.

[5] [2024] QCAT 88 paragraphs [33] to [50]

[6] [2011] QCAT 343 paragraph [8]

[7] Statement of evidence of Mr Wang filed on 13 January 2025

[8] Wei-Xin Chen v Body Corporate for Wishart Village CTS 19482 District Court 29 May 2001 (unreported)