Fair Work Act 2009

s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying

Fiona Taylor, Shuping Li, Micheal Wilkins, Skyline Strata Management

Application for an FWC order to stop bullying - reasonable management action considered - bullying not found - application dismissed

• [1] On 21 March 2025 Mrs Yan (Shirley) Wang made an application pursuant to s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 for orders to stop bullying at work. The application alleged that Mrs Wang was bullied whilst performing work for the Body Corporate for Il Villaggio Community Titles Scheme 28518 (the Body Corporate), and identified three persons, Ms Fiona Taylor, Ms Shuping Li, and Mr Michael Wilkins as the perpetrators of the bullying.

• [2] Il Villaggio (the Complex) is a residential complex located in Sunnybank, Queensland. The residents of the Complex are both owner occupiers and renters. Mrs Wang and her husband, Mr Ho Lau (Rocky) own and operate ProAgent. ProAgent has been contracted to provide both caretaking services (cleaning, maintenance and gardening) and letting services (rental management for unit owners) to the Body Corporate since 2021 - this is a commercial/contractual arrangement that is captured in a Management Agreement. Whilst this is not a traditional employment relationship, there is no dispute that Ms Wang performs work in a constitutionally covered business and that Part 6-4B of the Act (which deals with bullying at work) applies in relation to the business.

• [3] Mrs Wang and Mr Lau are unit owners and live onsite. As unit owners and directors of ProAgent, Mrs Wang and Mr Lau interact with residents in dual capacities as both caretakers providing services and as fellow residents.

• [4] The Body Corporate directs and oversees the work of ProAgent and consequently, Mrs Wang and Mr Lau. Ms Taylor, who is a lot owner living onsite, was elected as the Chairperson of the Body Corporate committee in May 2024. Ms Li, who is also a lot owner living onsite, was also appointed as treasurer in or around the same date. However, Mr Wilkins, though a lot owner and partner of Ms Li, has no role in the Body Corporate.

• [5] The relationship between the parties is commercial, residential, and personal and this application is just one manifestation of a broader breakdown in the relationship between the parties, with both accusing the other of bullying and other inappropriate behaviour over an extended period of time. It is also relevant that, prior to the filing of this application, the Body Corporate had filed an official complaint with the Queensland Police, with respect to Mrs Wang's conduct as caretaker - these allegations were under active investigation at the time of the hearing.

• [6] It is against this backdrop that Mrs Wang filed her application seeking the issuing of orders to stop bullying. The Body Corporate deny there has been any bullying and argue the disputes between the parties are essentially contractual/commercial in nature and that any action taken by them has been reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way.

• [7] The parties participated in a conciliation conference on 27 May 2025. With the assistance of the Commission, a range of proposed actions were developed that, it was hoped, would resolve the issues between the parties without the need to further consider the issuing of orders. At the conclusion of the conference the parties agree to hold further discussions with a view to settling the matter. The Commission sent an email summarising the proposed way forward and seeking that parties report back to Chambers. Ultimately, attempts to resolve the dispute were unsuccessful and Mrs Wang pressed her application. It is noted that many of the actions suggested during the conference have been adopted by the Body Corporate regardless of Ms Wang pressing for Orders. Directions were issued and the matter was heard via Teams, on 4 September 2025.

• [8] As Mrs Wang was self-represented, I had previously considered the hearing may have been appropriately conducted as a determinative conference. However, noting the number of witnesses and Mrs Wang's requirement for an interpreter, I advised the parties at the commencement of the hearing of my intention to proceed using the structure of a hearing.[1]

• [9] Having previously been granted permission to be represented, the Body Corporate, Ms Taylor and Ms Li were represented at the hearing by Mr Jacob Redden. Mr Wilkins represented himself and filed his own material. Mrs Wang gave evidence on her own behalf, as did Mr Lau. Ms Taylor, Ms Lui and Mr Wilkins gave evidence in support of the Body Corporate and themselves.

• [10] A Mandarin Interpreter was provided at Mrs Wang's Request. At the commencement of the hearing, Mrs Wang indicated her preference to proceed with the hearing in English, confirming that she would let me know if she required the assistance of the interpreter at any stage.

• [11] In advance of the hearing, the Body Corporate sought a confidentiality order to ensure the Commission did not publish the names of the parties, the Complex name and its address in any decision, on the basis that it will be more conducive to the continuation of an on-going safe and productive working relationship between Mrs Wang, Ms Taylor and Ms Li. Additionally, it was suggested that the identification of the parties would also result in the identification of the complex, which may impact other residents. Mrs Wang opposed the order being made and the parties were advised that the matter would be dealt with at the hearing.

• [12] Having heard from the parties, I turned my mind to the appropriateness of confidentiality orders in bullying proceedings, particularly in light of the principles of open justice.[2] Having considered these principles, I did not consider that there was any proper basis for the making of confidentiality orders, or the deidentification of any of the orders sought.[3] On that basis the Body Corporate's request was refused.

• [13] On 29 October 2025, Chambers received an email from Ms Taylor titled _"_Urgent Formal Notification - Fraud Charges Against Shirley Wang". The email explained that the Police investigation into the complaints made against Mrs Wang had been finalised, and Mrs Wang had been formally charged with fraud. Later that same day, Chambers wrote to the parties inviting any further submissions they wished to make in response to Ms Taylor's email detailing the update in circumstances by 31 October 2025.

• [14] Mrs Wang provided a response on 31 October in which she reaffirmed that all of the evidence and information she had previously submitted was true and correct, sought to make further submissions regarding the credibility of witness evidence provided during the hearing, and sought to provide new evidence relating to the conduct of others since the hearing. This additional information had not been requested, and Mrs Wang did not seek leave to submit additional evidence. As such, only the elements of Mrs Wang's email that related to my specific request have been taken into account.

• [15] On 31 October I sought further clarification from the parties regarding Mrs Wang's status, specifically, whether or not she continued to perform work for the Body Corporate.

• [16] On 3 November 2025, Ms Lui emailed Chambers in response to Mrs Wang's email. This prompted an email from chambers, reminding the parties that the matter had already been heard, and that the only submission being sought concerned "whether Mrs Wang continues to perform work for the Body Corporate". The parties were advised that "any material provided by you that does not relate to this will not be taken into account". Ms Taylor responded that same day confirming that "The Caretaker's contract is still valid and she is technically still working".[4] Mrs Wang provided no further submissions.

• [17] I have accepted Ms Taylor's email on 29 October 2025 as a late submission, noting Mrs Wang was afforded the opportunity to provide any further submissions she wished to make about it. Mrs Wang did not make any submissions about the change in circumstances, other than confirming her earlier submissions and evidence. To be clear, I have not accepted the additional material provided by Mrs Wang, and responded to by Ms Li, and it has not formed a part of my considerations.

• [18] Mrs Wang submits that she has lawfully served as caretaker since 1 June 2021 under the Management Agreement. But despite strict compliance with her contractual obligations, she has been subjected to an ongoing campaign of bullying, harassment and unreasonable conduct. Mrs Wang alleges this conduct has been ongoing but has intensified over the past 2 years.

• [19] Mrs Wang provided voluminous submissions, comprising of over 900 pages of screenshots of WeChat/WhatsApp messages, photos, videos and emails in support of her allegations. Mrs Wang provided numerous email exchanges between her and Ms Taylor to evidence her claims that Ms Taylor was harassing her outside of hours. All of Mrs Wang's filed material was received into evidence and afforded appropriate weight after an assessment of its relevance and its character.

• [20] Mrs Wang's submissions detail over 29 separate incidents of alleged bullying. Many of these allegations are quite repetitive and concern a range of similar behaviours and incidents. In short summary, Mrs Wang evidences the following behaviours which she believes to be bullying:

• "Sent 33 harassing emails outside business hours (including at 10:34pm and 3:34am)
• 12 June 24 Caretaker requested Fiona stop sending email after business hour, but she ignored caretaker request email.
• Issued 13 invalid formal breach notices (12 outside business hours) after caretaker solicitor replied and advise Fiona these behaviours are unreasonable and workplace bully on 20 March 25 & 4 April 2025. She continues her unreasonable behaviours send 13th formal breach notice on 6 April (Sunday) 8:52AM.
• Withheld $4,500 in approved reimbursements and delayed payment of my remuneration
• Excluded me from committee communications and meetings

• • Made repeated false accusations about my work performance"[5]

• "Issued repeated threats of litigation to "financially ruin" me unless I complied with non-contractual demands
• Spread 21+ false and defamatory statements via WhatsApp & WeChat groups, including allegations of:
  • Excessive high salary claims ($550/$608 daily)
  • Theft of body corporate funds
  • Corruption with committee members

• • Engaged in abusive language including calling me "shameless", "low-life pig" and "idiot""[6]

• [21] Mrs Wang says that previous caretakers have faced similar treatment over the past 24 years, and this had created a toxic environment.[7] Mrs Wang stated she did not have an issue with the whole committee, just Ms Taylor, Mr Lui and Mr Wilkin, who's actions she says have been planned to force her to sell her caretaker rights. It is Mrs Wang's evidence that these behaviours are causing her significant stress and create on ongoing risk to her health and safety.

• [22] Mrs Wang's application sought the following orders:

• "Require the respondents to immediately cease all bullying behaviour
• Prohibit any further breach notices being issued without proper legal basis
• Require payment of all outstanding amounts owed to me
• Appoint one committee member as caretaker liaison people according to caretaker agreement

• • Mandate anti-bullying training for all committee members"[8]

• [23] Mrs Wang's submissions in advance of the hearing however sought over 50 orders, each relating to one of the specific 29 allegations. Many of the Orders sough relate to contractual relationship between the parties and fall outside of the Commission's jurisdiction. In large part, the remaining orders sought can be generally characterised as falling within the 5 general orders originally sought.

• [24] It is the evidence of Ms Taylor, Ms Li and Mr Wilkins that the state of the complex had significantly deteriorated since Mrs Wang took over the contract. It is submitted that they have since 2022, been taking steps to performance manage ProAgent to bring the Complex up to an acceptable standard.[9]

• [25] In her role as chairperson, and subsequently caretaker liaison officer, Ms Taylor is required to communicate with Mrs Wang about issues relating to the Complex, matters relating to Mrs Wang as a lot owner, and issues in relation to the performance of the Management

Agreement by ProAgent. Ms Li has also engaged with Mrs Wang in respect of these matters in her capacity as Treasurer.

• [26] The Body Corporate submit that despite a history of independent assessments finding Mrs Wang's performance of caretaker services to be poor, Mrs Wang has consistently disputed every issue of poor performance raised by Ms Taylor, Ms Li, any other member of the management committee or any other resident.[10]

• [27] Ms Taylor and Ms Li say that Mrs Wang retaliates against any person who raises a

concern or query about her performance, including with aggressive communications, threats of legal action and in some instances intimidating behaviour. They say that Mrs Wang's consistent hostile response to any attempt to engage with her in relation to performance of the services has led to a hostile relationship and hostile environment in the Complex.[11]

• [28] The Respondents are concerned that the Applicant will continue to respond to any

attempt by the Body Corporate to exercise their legitimate rights under the service

• [29] Whilst not accepting Mrs Wang has been bullied, the Body Corporate submit they have taken all reasonable steps to address any risk, namely:

(a) Ms Taylor has repeatedly said to Mrs Wang that she does not expect her to read or respond to any communication sent outside of business hours until the following day;

(b) The Body Corporate committee complies with the procedures set out in the Body Corporate by-laws for scheduling meetings, and has invited Mrs Wang to share her availability so this can be taken into consideration;

(c) The Body Corporate committee is continuing to write to Mrs Wang in a

courteous manner while addressing contentious matters with her;

(d) Ms Taylor has actively attempted to step down as the liaison officer to create some

separation between herself and Mrs Wang. However, no one else volunteered

• [30] Further, it was Mr Taylor's evidence that both herself and Ms Li have resigned as administrators of any WhatsApp and WeChat groups.[13]

• [31] The Body Corporate say the Application should be dismissed. If further orders are to be made, the Body Corporate submit the following matters are relevant:[14]

(a) This is not a matter where separation can be created between the parties. The

Applicant and all Named Persons reside within the Complex as neighbours. It is

not possible to put in place orders that the parties avoid each other.

(b) Some of the interactions between the Applicant and the Named Persons occur

when the Applicant is "not at work". Given that all parties reside in the Complex,

there is some difficulty to delineating the difference between when the Applicant is

(c) The Applicant needs to continue to communicate with the Body Corporate

committee and the committee has a contractual right to manage the supply of

(d) The committee are volunteers and are often required to perform their volunteer

(e) Any orders should not be in conflict with the Body Corporate rules, which can only

be amended in accordance with the procedures set out in the rules.

• [32] During cross examination Mrs Wang highlighted the reference in Ms Taylor's witness statement to matters that had been referred to the police. In response to a question from me, in which I sought to better understand the scope of the allegations, Ms Taylor described irregularities in the appointment of the immediate past Committee, which she said were self-selected by Mrs Wang, and whom, once in place, approved a reimbursement to Pro Agent and otherwise authorised payments to ProAgent for services not provided.

• [33] It was Ms Taylor's evidence that as a result of these actions, the Body Corporate was in significant financial difficulty, resulting in there being insufficient funds to pay for the complex insurance. It was Ms Taylor's evidence that it was these issues, in particular the poor financial state of the Committee that resulted in a change of Committee. Since taking over in 2022, the Committee found many past irregularities which ultimately led the Committee to refer Mrs Wangs actions to the Police. These matters were still under active investigation at the time of the hearing, however as referenced earlier, Ms Wang has since been formally charged with Fraud.

• [34] Mr Wilkins' evidence related in large part to examples of how he says he and other residents are being bullied by Mrs Wang, including the allegations that Mrs Wang and Mr Lau had thrown his personal parcels into the rubbish bin, the "letterbox incident" in which he alleges Mrs Wang and Mr Lau have been filling up their letter boxes with junk mail, and the deliberate "slamming of bin lids at 10pm at night".[15] Similarly, Mrs Wang's cross examination of Mr Wilkins focussed on these same incidents.

• [35] As much of Mr Wilkins' evidence related to complaints surrounding Mrs Wang's conduct rather than the relevant provisions I must consider, it is not necessary for me to make any findings of fact with respect to these allegations. I do note however, that rather than supporting her own case, Mrs Wang's cross examination of Mr Wilkins did more to highlight her unwillingness to cooperate with the Body Corporate, particularly with respect to the provisions of security footage, which Mr Wilkins says was available, and could demonstrate the alleged behaviour of Mrs Wang and Mr Lau, but which Mrs Wang refused to provide.

• [36] Of relevance to the allegation of bullying towards Mrs Wang, Mr Wilkins accepted that he had used the term "Shameless", but that this was in response to a post Mrs Wang had made which included Mr Wilkins and Ms Li's residential address.[16]

• [37] Mr Wilkins refuted the allegation that he has referred to Mrs Wang as a "lying pig" but did accept that he had used this term in relation to another resident after they had posted a comment on Mrs Wang's WhatsApp group accusing Mrs Li of stealing from the body corporate.[17]

• [38] Mr Wilkins stated the "'lap monkey' thing was directed at Unit 35 "after just a few weeks of suddenly leaving the committee, Unit 35 sends an email to complain that the new committee members are a 'bunch of clowns'".[18]

• [39] During cross examination I observed Mrs Wang to be unwilling to acknowledge the part she may have played in the breakdown of the relationship between the parties. Mrs Wang was unwilling to accept alternate propositions put, including that many of the issues between the parties were contractual in nature, or that the Body Corporate had taken steps to reduce any risk such as confirming emails were not required to be responded to outside of business hours.

• [40] The strained personal relationship between Mrs Wang and the witnesses, was evident. As noted by Ms Taylor on several occasions, all decisions of the Body Corporate are made by the full Committee, not just Ms Taylor and Ms Li. As such, I found Mrs Wang's continued references to not having a problem with the whole Committee, just Ms Taylor, Ms Li and Mr Wilkins (who is not a member of the Committee) demonstrated a level of unreasonableness that flowed through all of her submissions and evidence.

• [41] Mrs Wang's cross examination at times strayed into personal attacks and statements rather than cross examination and whilst significant leeway was provided to Mrs Wang on account of her being self-represented, I had cause, on numerous occasions, to remind her of difference between cross examination and the making of submission and statements.

• [42] Mr Lau requested the use of the Mandarin interpreter when giving his evidence.

• [43] After Mr Lau had been excused, the interpreter raised a concern with respect to a possible misunderstanding on their part of the question put to Mr Lau (there was only one question asked in cross examination). Attempts to recall Mr Lau were unsuccessful, however ultimately, the parties agreed that no weight would be given to the question, or Mr Lau's answer. I have proceeded accordingly.

• [44] I found Ms Taylor to be a credible witness, and I agree with Mr Redden's characterisation of her as a diligent Chairperson. Ms Taylor spoke candidly of her struggles managing the caretaker contract with ProAgent, whilst holding a full-time job. To Ms Taylor's credit, even under the stress of cross-examination, she maintained her willingness to find a way forward, and expressed her belief that, if the issues relating to the performance of caretaking services could be resolved, the complex could be returned to a happy environment for all residents.

• [45] As with Mr Wilkins, much of Mrs Wang's cross examination of Ms Taylor went to allegations that she and other residents had in fact been bullied by Mrs Wang. Again, whilst this evidence is of little value to the question of whether or not Mrs Wang is being bullied, it does speak to the relationship between the parties, and to Ms Wang's conduct in the matters being considered.

• [46] I observed Ms Taylor to remain composed throughout lengthy and at times confusing cross-examination, and to provide reasonable explanations of the Committee's actions. Despite making general statements accusing Ms Taylor of being untruthful, Ms Wang was unable to point to any evidence to support this claim, nor did I observe any behaviours that gave me any reason to question Ms Taylor's credibility.

• [47] At the commencement of Mr Wilkins' evidence, I advised Ms Li that she could not be present whilst Mr Wilkins was giving his evidence. Both Ms Wilkins and Ms Li agreed to this however part way through Mr Wilkins' evidence, it became clear that Ms Li was still present. For his part, I accept that Mr Wilkins was not necessarily aware of Ms Li's actions and he took steps to rectify the situation once it was brought to his attention. Having reviewed the transcript, I do not consider there to be any issues of credibility with respect to Mr Wilkins.

• [48] The evidence of Ms Li was problematic. Ms Li failed to comply with my direction that she leave the room when Mr Wilkins was giving his evidence and again prior to the commencement of Ms Taylor's evidence. Mrs Wang's cross examination of Ms Li attempted to discredit much of the material in her witness statement, including an incident in which Ms Li says an ambulance was called as a result of suspected chemical inhalation.

• [49] The majority of Ms Li's cross examination dealt with similar matters to those of Mr Wilkins and on each accusing the other of misinformation and bullying behaviour through group chats in which both women were members.

• [50] Ms Li's conduct prior to giving her evidence was extremely disruptive and caused significant delays. During cross examination, the strained personal relationship between Mrs Wang and Ms Li was evident. Ms Li's evidence has been weighted accordingly.

• [51] A worker is "bullied at work" if a person or group repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards the worker (or a group of workers of which they are a member) while they are at work in a constitutionally covered business, and the behaviour creates a risk to health and safety.[19] Bullying at work does not include reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner.[20]

• [52] If a worker has been bullied at work and there is a risk that the bullying behaviour will continue, orders can be made to stop the bullying and to prevent it from happening again. The scope of the discretion to make orders of this kind is broad although orders cannot be made for the payment of money.

• [53] In order to make the requested orders, the Commission must be satisfied that Mrs Wang has been bullied and that there is a risk of bullying continuing. I will deal with the question of whether bullying has occurred first. It follows that if I do not find Mrs Wang has been bullied, there is no need for me to consider ongoing risk, nor can I issue any orders.

• [54] Behaviour will not be considered bullying if it is reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner. In considering whether the action taken by the Body Corporate or person's names meets this threshold, I have taken into account the comments of Hampton, C in Ms SB[21] where he said:

"[51] The test is whether the management action was reasonable, not whether it could have been undertaken in a manner that was 'more reasonable' or 'more acceptable'.[22] In general terms this is likely to mean that:

· management actions do not need to be perfect or ideal to be considered reasonable;

· a course of action may still be 'reasonable action' even if particular steps are not;

· to be considered reasonable, the action must also be lawful and not be 'irrational, absurd or ridiculous';[23]

· any 'unreasonableness' must arise from the actual management action in question, rather than the applicant's perception of it; and

· consideration may be given as to whether the management action involved a significant departure from established policies or procedures, and if so, whether the departure was reasonable in the circumstances'"[24]

• [55] The key issues in dispute arise from how the Management Agreement has been administered by the Body Corporate, specifically the maintenance requirements for the property. The Body Corporate and the Persons Named have, over an extended period raised maintenance issues which they sought to address with Mrs Wang. Mrs Wang perceives the actions of the Persons Named to be bullying behaviour.

• [56] The bullying behaviour alleged by Mrs Wang can be summarised as follows:

• The timing and volume of breach notices sent to Mrs Wang by Ms Taylor.
• The scheduling of committee meetings at times that are not convenient for Mrs Wang;
• The demands by the Body Corporate committee that Mrs Wang perform tasks outside of the Management Agreement;
• The repeated criticism of Mrs Wang's performance in her role; and
• The spreading of "false accusations" by Ms Li and Mr Wilkins in WhatsApp and WeChat groups;

• [57] Given the close association of these allegations with the contractual disputes between the parties it is helpful to briefly consider the Management Agreement and its operation before I considered the above allegations.[25]

• [58] The Management Agreement provides for the appointment and remuneration of the Manager and sets out the Manager's primary responsibilities. The duties of the Manager are provided at 3(a) through 3(w). I do not restate them here, but they unsurprisingly require the Manager to use "all reasonable endeavours to ensure the complex is kept in good order and repair. Relevantly, 3(k) requires the Manager to:

"Comply with and carry out all reasonable directions from time to time given in

accordance with Clause 13 hereof by the Body Corporate to the Manager in and about

the administration and management of the said buildings and the performance by the

Body Corporate of its lawful obligations and duties."

• [59] Further details of the Managers duties are contained in Schedule A which provides:

"The Manager shall perform the duties so that the landscaped grounds (lawns, trees, hedges, shrubs and plants) and the pool area and common facilities are maintained to a professional standard appropriate to a development of this style (luxury resort-style living) or as agreed to by the Body Corporate and Manager in accordance with the tasks outlined below:"

• [60] Schedule A then goes on to provide more detailed guidance and suggested daily and weekly, monthly routines under the following headings:[26]

• Cleaning and grounds maintenance
  • Care and Cleaning of Common areas
  • Pool, spa, sauna and fountains
  • Letterbox area
  • Footpaths and access roads
  • Refuse storage areas
  • Gardens, grounds and common property
  • Gate entrance
  • Pumps/Motors
  • Common property, gymnasium, games room and toilet
  • Carparking - common property
  • Lighting
  • Security
  • Reports to the Body Corporate

• [61] Mrs Wang maintains the view that she has at all times operated in "strict compliance" with the Management Agreement. The Body corporate on the other hand argue that Mrs Wang maintains an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the work she and ProAgent are required to perform under the Management Agreement and has failed to keep the complex in a reasonable state.

• [62] Whilst it is not within my jurisdiction to make any finding with respect to the contractual disputes between the parties, I have observed Ms Wang to possess a complete disregard for the role of the Body Corporate and their responsibilities to all owners and an unwillingness to accept their ability to direct Ms Wang in her work. Ms Wang appears to wholeheartedly believe that if something is not specified in the Management Agreement, it is not her role. I do not accept Ms Wang's proposition and, relevant to my considerations in this matter, I observe that the Management Agreement, and Schedule A, are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of duties.

• [63] Several of the alleged behaviours Mrs Wang believes to be bullying relate to her performance under the Management Agreement considered above. Specifically:

• Demands by the Body Corporate committee that Mrs Wang perform tasks outside of the Management Agreement;
• The repeated criticism of Mrs Wang's performance in her role; and
• The issuing of breach notices.

• [64] The Body Corporate submit that ProAgent have underperformed or failed to perform its contractual obligations.[27] In support of this contention, it is submitted that in November 2022, the Body Corporate engaged David Leary and Partners Quantity Surveyors and Asset Management Consultants (D&L) to provide an assessment of the complex and provide a report on the general condition and repair of the common property.[28] It is submitted and I accept, that the purpose of the report was to assist the body corporate assess ProAgent's compliance with the Management Agreement at that time. The report concluded that several areas within the complex did not meet industry standards for a complex of its type.[29] As a result, the Body Corporate at the time issued a number of Remedial Action Notices (RAN) to ProAgent. It is submitted that throughout 2023 and 2024 the Body Corporate continued to have issues with the services being provided by ProAgent. It is Ms Taylor's evidence that throughout 2024 and into 2025, she attempted to informally deal with ProAgent's underperformance through discussions and emails with Mrs Wang however there was no improvement. With no improvement seen, the Body Corporate elected to take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with the Management Agreement, including the issuing of formal breach notices to ProAgent. I have seen no evidence to suggest that these actions were not open to the Body Corporate, nor have I been convinced that the decision to take these actions was unreasonable in the circumstances.

• [65] Ms Taylor provided evidence of what she believed to be repeated reasonable requests made by her in an attempt to rectify the many and varied issues relating to the performance of the contract. Ms Taylor and Ms Li say that the Applicant retaliates against any person who raises a concern or query about her performance, including with aggressive communications, threats of legal action and in some instances intimidating behaviour.[30]

• [66] I observed several examples of this, and the conflict being caused by Ms Wang's narrow and strict interpretation of the Management Agreement, including the below exchange between Ms Taylor and Mrs Wang on 23 September 2024, which commences with Ms Taylor raising a concern regarding the cleanliness of bins within the Complex:[31]

• [67] In reply, Mrs Wang provided the following:

• [68] In July 2025, D&L were again engaged to provide a common property condition assessment. The D&L report was annexed to Ms Taylor's witness statement and contains numerous photos of the complex and concludes as follows:[32]

"It is my conclusion, based on the inspection criteria, that on the day of my inspection, the common property in Il Villaggio did not meet standard industry expectations for a complex of this type. To the extent to which the scope of this report applies, it is my opinion that the Caretaker is not currently carrying out all their duties to a standard that complies with their obligations under the Caretaking Agreement."

• [69] Again, rather than engaging with the Body Corporate to address the issues identified for the betterment of the Complex, Ms Wang questioned whether the report had had been authorised and paid for by the Body Corporate. Mrs Wang then sent a 6-page letter to all owners titled "Concerns regarding unauthorised report from David Leary in which Mrs Wang states:

"Clearly, this is not an independent, balanced, or comprehensive assessment. Instead, it appears to serve the personal agendas of certain individuals - again, potentially at the expense of all owners and without their knowledge or consent."

• [70] Much is made by Mrs Wang in her submission of the circumstances surrounding the Body Corporate obtaining the D&L Report. I consider these matters relate to the operation and management of the Body Corporate and as such, are not within my jurisdiction. I make no comment on these issues, other than to note that I consider the obtaining of a common property assessment to be a reasonable step in the circumstances. I do not however accept Mrs Wang's contentions regarding the legitimacy and independence of the report, noting the reference within the D&L Report to it having been prepared in compliance with QCAT's Expert Evidence Policy.[33]

• [71] As noted above, I have not been convinced that the Body Corporate is acting outside of the Management Agreement when seeking the performance of duties not specifically referenced in the Management Agreement. Further, the evidence clearly supports a finding that Mrs Wang has adopted an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the Management Agreement and has retaliated against any person who has raised a concern or query about her performance.

• [72] Again, it is not within my jurisdiction to determine contractual disputes between the parties however by any objective view, the complex could not be said to meet the professional standard of "luxury resort style living" and the evidence demonstrates that even simple cleaning and maintenance work has not been attended to. In these circumstances, I find it was not unreasonable for the Body Corporate, on behalf of all owners to have raised their concerns with ProAgent, and to have taken whatever steps open to them to address what they, in my view quite reasonably, believed to be ProAgent's non-compliance with the Management Agreement. I have not been convinced by Ms Wang's attempts to paint these contractual disputes between the parties as Bullying. I have not been convinced that the Body corporate have demanded Mrs Wang perform tasks outside of the Management Agreement.

• [73] The evidence does not support the allegation that the Body Corporate committee has demanded that Mrs Wang perform tasks outside of the Management Agreement. Having considered the submissions and evidence, I have not been convinced that the Body corporate or Ms Taylor have acted unreasonably in attempting to clarify their expectations of ProAgent and Mrs Wang.

• [74] Further, I have not been convinced that the Body Corporate's approach to any of these discussions has been unreasonable in the circumstances. These requests and discussions were reasonable management action taken in a reasonable manner in line with what Mrs Wang was expected to perform under the Management Agreement. Therefore, I do not consider this to be bullying behaviour.

Issuing of Formal breach notices - False accusations regarding work performance

• [75] Mrs Wang suggests that the Body Corporate, in particular Ms Taylor have acted unreasonably in issuing breach and RAN notices to ProAgent. There is no dispute that the notices were issued, and as considered above the Body Corporate and Ms Taylor personally made multiple attempts over a number of years to address these issues with Ms Wang and ProAgent to no avail.

• [76] In all of the circumstances, I have not been convinced that the Body Corporate, in exercising its right to raise issues with the service being provided by ProAgent have acted inappropriately. Having reviewed the extensive material filed by the parties, I am satisfied that the Body Corporate, through Ms Taylor approached their performance concerns with Pro Agent in a professional manner. The issuing of breach notices was reasonable management action taken in a reasonable manner in line with what Mrs Wang was expected to perform under the Management Agreement. Therefore, I do not consider this to be bullying behaviour.

The timing and volume of breach notices sent to Mrs Wang by Ms Taylor.

• [77] I have considered the issuing of breach notices above and have found them to have been reasonable management action. Ms Wang further alleges that the timing and volume of these notices and other email communications from Ms Taylor were bullying behaviour.

• [78] It was Mrs Wang's Evidence that Ms Taylor frequently sent emails outside of work hours, including at night, after 9pm. Mrs Wang stated that Ms Taylor would use words like "immediately" in these emails. Mrs Wang contends that she would receive as many as 3-4 emails a day from Ms Taylor. Mrs Wang says the timing and volume of the emails affects her work capacity and causes stress as she has to handle both he emails and her caretaking duties.

• [79] It was Ms Taylor's evidence that her role as Committee Chair is voluntary. Ms Taylor works full-time and as such, the work she does for the Body Corporate is often undertaken afterhours. Ms Taylor says she has clarified with Mrs Wang in the past and more recently, that regardless of when the emails are sent, there is no requirement for Mrs Wang to respond until the next day, within business hours.

• [80] Having considered the evidence of the parties, I accept Ms Taylor's evidence that whilst she has in the past sent emails to Mrs Wang outside of hours, she has no expectation that Mrs Wang will respond, rather, Mrs Wang has been "been given repeated instructions, to not open these emails unnecessarily". I consider the issuing of emails to Mrs Wang is a usual and necessary part of Ms Taylor's role and I have not been convinced that her action in this regard could be described as unreasonable. I find the behaviours described by Ms Wang with respect to Ms Taylor's emails was reasonable management action taken in a reasonable manner, and consistent with the scope of ProAgent's responsibilities under the Management Agreement. Therefore, I do not consider this to be bullying behaviour.

Withholding of reimbursements & delayed payment of remuneration

• [81] The payment of invoices and reimbursements are contractual matters between the parties. There have clearly been a number of issues, including those referred to the Pollice, that raise questions as to the legitimacy of some reimbursement sought by ProAgent. In these circumstances, It consider it reasonable that the Body Corporate have raised concerns and questioned further requests.

• [82] With respect to the alleged delaying of remuneration invoices, it was Ms Taylor's evidence that, in January 2025, in the course of reviewing a range of matters, it came to the Treasurer's attention that ProAgent has been issuing invoices 4-6 weeks in advance, and as a result of the Administrator's "pay-on demand" invoicing, Mrs Wang had for some time being paid up to 6 weeks in advance. It was Ms Taylor's evidence that the making of these payments in advance, along with the other financial issues faced by the Body Corporate had resulted in there being insufficient funds to pay the invoice in question. As a result, the Body Corporate placed a request with the Body Corporate Administration that Mrs Wang's February 2025 invoice be held. Whilst this may not have been welcome news to Mrs Wang, Ms Taylor was upfront with Mrs Wang and explained the Body Corporate's position. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that these actions were unreasonable given the circumstances. I find the alleged behaviour relating to the delay the payment of ProAgent's invoices to have been reasonable management action. Therefore, I do not consider this to be bullying behaviour.

Exclusion from committee communications and meetings

• [83] Mrs Wang claims that Committee meetings have been scheduled at times that she is unable to attend, which she says is bullying behaviour. A range of emails between the parties show an exchange between Mrs Wang and the Secretary of the Body Corporate. Viewed objectively, these emails show a meeting being set, for 10 March 2025 at 3:30pm and Mrs Wang subsequently advising that she could not attend at that time. It is not unusual for one or more participant to be unavailable to attend a meeting once the date has been set. The Body Corporate submits, and I accept, that they comply with the procedures set out in the Body Corporate by-laws for scheduling meetings and has invited Mrs Wang to share her availability so this can be taken into consideration. The evidence does not support a finding that the Body Corporate has acted unreasonably, or with a view to exclude Mrs Wang from attending meetings. Again, I find the actions of the Body Corporate with respect to the scheduling of Committee Meetings to be reasonable management action. Therefore, I do not consider this to be bullying behaviour.

The spreading of "false accusations" by Ms Li and Mr Wilkins in WhatsApp and WeChat groups

• [84] These particular allegations are level primarily at Ms Li and Mr Wilkins and it is at times unclear who Mrs Wang alleges is responsible for which particular comment. This does present a difficulty as Ms Li is a member of the Management Committee, and as such her conduct in this matter is of more significance than that of Mr Wilkin's, who is simply a resident within the complex and Ms Li's partner. As such, any actions taken by Mr Wilkins, and indeed other resident's, is reasonably considered to be the result of personal and neighbourhood disputes than workplace disputes. Notwithstanding this, whilst I accept that the Body Corporate cannot reasonably be held accountable for the actions of residents or for disputes between neighbours, they do have a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure Mrs Wang is not subjected to unreasonable behaviour when performing work. This broader duty has been taken into consideration. The evidence shows a history of inappropriate exchanges between the parties and other residents; however, this must be viewed in context. Of most significant is the fact that both all parties and others have engaged in this conduct.

• [85] A review of the evidence supports the contention that for some time, the caretaker and a group of her supporters have been making a range of remarks about the committee in their private owners' group, including very serious claims that the current Body Corporate has misused body corporate funds. I accept that on multiple occasions, inappropriate comments have been posted targeting the committee's integrity and reputation. In these circumstances, it is understandable that Ms Li and Mr Wilkins have felt the need to respond to these claims in order to correct the record and provide their version of events. It is relevant that the allegations levelled against the Body Corporate appear to have been made at the same time as the Body Corporate were exercising their rights to press Mrs Wang regarding the performance of ProAgent, and importantly at the same time as they had cause to refer Mrs Wang's conduct to the Police.

• [86] I accept that the some of these responses and comments, particularly those of Mr Wilkin's would not ordinary be considered ideal however, when viewed objectively and in their full context, I do not consider them to be bullying.

• [87] With Respect the Body Corporate's duty to ensure a safe working environment for Mrs Wang, I accept the Body Corporate's evidence that they have taken steps to address the level of misinformation in these groups, having previously advised ProAgent that "It has come to our attention that there have been instances of unprofessional behaviour, including your unofficial WhatsApp group communications and comments"[34] and had formally requested Mrs Wang rename her 'Official IL Villaggio' group so as to avoid confusion with residents who had presumed this to be a Body Corporate run and sanctioned group when it clearly was not.[35] Additionally, I accept the evidence of s Taylor and Mrs Li that they have taken steps to remove themselves from all such groups. Considering all of the circumference of this matter, I have not been convinced that the behaviours highlighted by Mrs Wang, when considered in their full context, and in the circumstances of this matter, constitute bullying.

• [88] As I am not satisfied that Mrs Wang has been bullied at work by the Body Corporate or any of the person's names, no orders to stop the alleged bullying can be made. The application is dismissed. I order accordingly.

J Redden for the Body Corporate, F Taylor and S Li

[2] Amie Mac v Bank of Queensland Limited and Others [2015] FWC 774.

[4] Email to Chambers from Ms Fiona Taylor dated 3 November 2025.

[5] P.497-498 of the DCB - Witness Statement of Mrs Yan (Shirley) Wang.

[6] P.497 of the DCB - Witness Statement of Mrs Yan (Shirley) Wang.

[8] P.498 of the DCB - Witness Statement of Mrs Yan (Shirley) Wang.

[9] P.943 of the DCB - Submissions of the First, Second and Third Respondents.

[13] P.964 of the DCB - Witness Statement of Fiona Taylor.

[14] P.945 of the DCB - Submissions of the First, Second and Third Respondents.

[19] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s789FD(1).

[20] Ibid s789FD(2).

[21] Ms SB [2014] FWC 2104.

[22] Bropho v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] FCAFC 16; (2004) 135 FCR 105 at [79].

[23] See Von Stieglitz and Comcare [2010] AATA 263 at [67].

[24] See the discussion in Department of Education & Training v Sinclair [2005] NSWCA 465.

[25] P.942 of the DCB - Submissions of the First, Second and Third Respondents.

[26] P.931-932 of the DCB - Management Agreement.

[30] P.943 of the DCB - Submissions of the First, Second and Third Respondents.

[31] P.258 of the DCB - Attachments to Form F72.

[32] P.1172 of the DCB - Annexure to Fiona Taylor's Statement.

[34] P.274 of the DCB - Attachments to F72.

[35] P.103 of the DCB - Attachments to F72.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer