Decisions table

IMPROVEMENTS – whether the respondent has made improvements to common property without the required approval – whether the lot and common property must be reinstated to its prior condition. Standard Module, ss 187, 193

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MAINTENANCE; IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY; REASONABLENESS – where the respondents refused to engage a hydraulic engineer to investigate water flows and flooding at the scheme, or to approve a shade sail installed on common property six years ago due to concern that it may be contributing to water ingress to a lot; whether there is a dispute to enliven the jurisdiction of an adjudicator; whether the body corporate acted unreasonably; whether the engineer should be engaged and the shade sail approved. Act, ss 94(2), 276(1); Small Schemes Module, ss 106, 111(2).

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is warranted Act, s279

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 92226 owners corp
• 1A Eden Pty Ltd developer
• Garawin Pty Ltd party
• Joesandra Pty Ltd party

Judgment entered against 1A Eden for $2,500,000 in settlement of building defects claim, with costs ordered and freezing orders made against unit trust respondents pending new proceedings.

UNAUTHORISED EXCLUSIVE USE; NUISANCE; BY-LAW – where numerous rental vehicles owned by the respondent are being parked in the common property car park, reducing the parking available to others; whether that is an unauthorised exclusive appropriation or obstruction of the common property, or is causing a nuisance or unreasonable interference with the use of the common property. Act, ss 35(1)&(4), 62(2)&(3)(a), 167, 170, 184(2); Commercial Module, s 131.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

Unauthorised alteration of common property - Agreement in prior proceeding in respect of unauthorised alteration and dismissal of prior proceeding - Exercise of statutory discretion to make orders to resolve dispute - Compensation for pecuniary loss or damage

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

• Jie Shen lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 9751 owners corp

The appeal was dismissed and the stay order was lifted, with the Appeal Panel finding no grounds of appeal established by the lot owner regarding unauthorised installation of a garage door, security door, and bathroom renovations.

• Ausbao (286 Sussex St) Pty Ltd lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 100777 owners corp
• Bright & Duggan Pty Ltd manager

Declarations made that Bright & Duggan as strata manager has full authority to convene meetings of the Building Management Committee and that the general meetings on 11 September and 25 September 2025 were validly convened and resolutions passed were valid.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 31337 owners corp
• Grace Balacco lot owner

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the judgment against the owners corporation from $385,484.78 to $250,499.06, and ordered the owners corporation to pay one third of Ms Balacco's costs of the appeal.

OBLIGATION OF BODY CORPORATE TO MAINTAIN COMMON PROPERTY AND ROOFING STRUCTURES FAILURE TO MAINTAIN COMMON PROPERTY - LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE TO LOTS MAINTENANCE / IMPROVEMENTS – whether repair works to common property constitute “improvements” or “maintenance”. Sections 152, 159, 281 Body Corporate and Community Management Act Sections 180 186 Standard Module Regulation Seiwa v Strata Plan 35042 [2006] NSWSC The Moroccan [[2006] QBCCMCmr 729](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2006/729.html "View Case") MAGOG (NO 15) P/ L v Body Corporate for the Moroccan [[2010] QDC 70](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2010/70.html "View Case")

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MAINTENANCE – where a lot has been experiencing water ingress over many years from rain events – where the water is coming through common property, but the precise cause of the leak is unclear – whether the body corporate has breached its duty to maintain – whether the body corporate must obtain a hydraulics report to identify the causes and remediate these issues – whether the remainder of the application for repairs to the lot and reimbursement for damaged property should be dismissed for a court or tribunal with competent jurisdiction. Act, ss 94, 101(2), 152, 270, 281; Accommodation Module, ss 170

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is warranted. Act, s 279

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MAINTENANCE – whether the body corporate must restore the structural soundness of balconies damaged by long-term water penetration; whether the body corporate must reimburse the applicants’ expenditure on an engineer to investigate the condition of their balconies. Act, s 280; Standard Module, ss 180(2), 211(3).

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

PROPERTY DAMAGE – whether property damage was caused by the body corporate’s failure to maintain the common property – whether property damage was caused by the lot owner’s failure to maintain the lot REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in apportioning the costs of property damage and the insurance excess to a lot owner Act, ss 94, 100, 152, 160, 276 and 281; Standard Module, ss 180, 203 and 211

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES – where applicant alleges notice for a general meeting was not given 21 days’ before the meeting, whether meeting should be declared void; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – whether committee authorised spending above relevant limit for committee spending, or acted unreasonably in authorising spending above approved budgeted amounts, and whether expenditure was mis-applied to the sinking fund; COSTS – where respondent asserts the application is frivolous, vexatious, and without substance, whether an award of costs should be made. Act, ss 94, 270; Accommodation Module, ss 162, 163

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – whether a motion to grant exclusive use to two lots was valid – whether the motion was validly resolved by the exercise of the original owner’s powers of attorney for each lot – whether the committee complied with its obligations. Act, ss 94, 101B, 170-177, 219, 317

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

COMPENSATION – whether the body corporate must reimburse an owner for the replacement of carpet in a lot. Act, s 281

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where the applicants are being treated as unfinancial and barred from voting at an extraordinary general meeting – where the applicants deny they are unfinancial and seek an interim order allowing them to vote at the EGM – whether the interim order sought is warranted in the circumstances. Act, s 279; Standard Module, ss 102, 162

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MAINTENANCE – IMPROVEMENT – DECLARATION – ADVISORY OPINION – JURISDICTION – CONTRACTUAL MATTER The applicant is a lot owner and also the representative for the caretaking service contractor for the scheme. The applicant contends that some of the common property gardens required to be maintained by the caretaker in fact contain improvements which should therefore be maintained by the owners who made them, pursuant to s 187 Standard Module. The applicant put a motion to the committee which if passed would have the committee write to owners informing them that owners’ improvements to gardens must be maintained either my that owner or the body corporate and not by the caretaker. The motion was not passed, on the bases that the changes to the gardens were not improvements and otherwise because all garden maintenance was now the caretaker’s contractual obligation. The applicant says the committee’s position would have the effect of putting that maintenance obligation on the caretaker contrary to its agreement, and would create uncertainty for owners about their obligations to maintain common property improvements. The applicant seeks a declaratory order that the committee’s position on the issue is inconsistent with the legislation. Questions: whether a change to a garden is necessarily an improvement; whether the body corporate entering a caretaking agreement to maintain gardens excuses an owners’ obligation to maintain any improvement; whether a declaration about the committee’s view on legal obligations would be an advisory opinion and hence whether making the order would be within an adjudicator’s power; whether the contractual issue is beyond an adjudicator’s jurisdiction for being a complex dispute about a contractual matter. Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld): ss 229(2), 276(1) Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020: s 187

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

GENERAL MEETING – whether a general meeting should be declared void because there are no committee minutes resolving to call it; whether the resolutions of the meeting should be declared void due to various alleged irregularities. ADMINISTRATOR – whether to appoint an administrator for six months with all powers and functions of the body corporate committee to address issues such as: failure to make proper decisions by body corporate resolution, with notice to owners beforehand and minutes afterwards body corporate expenditure without an authorising resolution, and incomplete body corporate records. Act, ss 94(2), 97, 101A, 281; Standard Module, ss 82(1), 84(3)(a), 86(1)(a), 88(6)(a), 90(7), 91, 93(1), 93(2)(a)(v), 117(2), 162(2), 163(1), 172(1)(a), 180(1), 186, 231, 232(1), 233.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDERS – where the body corporate decided by ordinary resolution at a general meeting to pay for committee members’ legal expenses incurred in the defence of any defamation claims arising out of the performance of their duties and not covered by insurance, whether an interim order restraining the body corporate from making such payments is warranted and appropriate. Act, ss 101A, 111A, and 279; Standard Module, s 53

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

BY-LAWS – NUISANCE, HAZARD, UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE – whether the respondent is smoking on their lot – whether the respondent is in breach of the by-laws – whether the respondent is causing a nuisance, hazard, or unreasonable interference – COSTS – where the respondent failed to participate in conciliation – whether costs should be awarded. Act, ss 167, 169A, 280

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 865 owners corp
• Helen Carroll lot owner

The owners corporation was ordered to pay the respondent lot owner's costs of the appeal on an ordinary basis up to 18 July 2025 and on an indemnity basis thereafter, following unreasonable rejection of a Calderbank offer.

EXCLUSIVE USE BY-LAW – FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – whether the body corporate was entitled to charge owners a levy associated with the exclusive use of a rooftop area of common property. Standard Module, ss 163, 192, 210, 212

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MAINTENANCE – whether an owner must carry out repairs to termite damage to their lot and submit evidence to the body corporate. Act, ss 238(1)(b), 280; Standard Module, s 211(3).

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM – whether a cancellation of the interim order is warranted Act, s 279 FURTHER ORDERS MADE: This application for the cancellation of the interim orders made under application bearing reference 0390-2020 dated 01 April 2026 is hereby dismissed.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether decisions made on two general meeting motions were invalid. Act, ss 242, 270(1)(c); Standard Module, ss 86, 88, 89, 90

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is warranted Act, s279

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MAINTENANCE; PROPERTY DAMAGE – where water ingress and damage occurred to the penthouse lots and lots below via different mechanisms; where the body corporate addressed the cause and damage to the lots below but not the penthouse lots; where there was some indication the damage to the penthouse lots may have been due to their balconies having inadequate falls away from the building; whether the body corporate must correct the falls, including replacing the waterproof membrane and retiling. Act, s 281; Standard Module, ss 10(2)(b), 180(1)-(2), 211(3); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C(1), 49C(4).

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INSURANCE EXCESS – where water from a burst flexi-hose in a lot caused extensive damage to the lot - where the body corporate refused to contribute to the cost of the insurance excess it said was payable by the owner whose flexi-hose failed - whether that decision was unreasonable – whether a $10,000 excess imposed an unreasonable burden on the owners of individual lots. COMPENSATION – where applicant claims water damage to her property was due to a body corporate maintenance failure – whether the body corporate is liable for the costs of repairing the damage. Act, ss 20, 100, 280, 281; Accommodation Module, ss 170, 188, 193, 201

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

• Michael David Horan lot owner
• The Owners-Strata Plan No 68307 owners corp

The Appeal Panel dismissed the owners corporation's miscellaneous matters application seeking to appeal the Tribunal's costs order, finding it had no jurisdiction to determine an appeal from a first instance costs decision and directing the matter be returned to the Tribunal at first instance.

Strata titles - Application for costs - Onus on party seeking costs - Lack of evidence

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate has acted unreasonably by failing to record a new CMS upon material changes to service easements and an exclusive use area Act, s 94

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MAINTENANCE – rainwater ingress - where rooftop waterproofing membrane requires replacement – whether structures constructed in rooftop exclusive use area need to be removed to facilitate membrane replacement. Where there are maintenance and safety concerns with structures built on rooftop exclusive use area. Act, ss 94, 163, 243, 276, 279; Accommodation Module, ss 80, 106

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Contract — Implied terms — Statutory warranties — Design & Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW)

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

• The Owners-Strata Plan No 102171 owners corp
• Ceerose Pty Ltd builder
• Zone Q Milsons Point Development Pty Ltd developer
• Southern Cross Climate Control Pty Ltd contractor

The Tribunal made costs orders determining that Ceerose Pty Ltd and Zone Q Milsons Point Development Pty Ltd jointly and severally pay The Owners-Strata Plan No 102171's costs from 15 March 2024; Ceerose Pty Ltd pay Southern Cross Climate Control Pty Ltd's costs; Zone Q Milsons Point Development Pty Ltd pay Ceerose Pty Ltd's costs; and The Owners-Strata Plan No 102171 pay all respondents' costs of the unsuccessful re-opening application.

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is warranted. Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld): 279

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

MAINTENANCE – where the respondent has constructed a deck over the water isolation valve for the lot – whether the respondent has failed to maintain the water isolation valve in good condition – whether the respondent has interfered with utility services. Act, s 166; Standard Module, s 211

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

COMMITTEE MOTION – FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – COSTS – whether the body corporate made valid decisions to incur expenditure on repairs to a lot and negotiating a settlement – whether allegations of contraventions should be referred for further investigation – responsibility for legal representation – whether the application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance – whether costs should be awarded. Act, ss 94, 100, 270(1)(c)

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – whether an interim order is warranted. Act, s 279

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

INTERIM ORDER – whether interim relief is warranted. Act, s 279.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDERS – where the applicants seek to challenge an AGM motion which proposes to cut down palm trees on common property at the scheme – where the applicants raise issues with the AGM notice – whether the interim orders sought are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 94, 100, 101B, 159; Accommodation Module, ss 81, 89, 176

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

• Michell Huo lot owner
• The Owners-Strata Plan No. 44652 owners corp

The costs application in the reinstatement proceedings was dismissed; the Appeal Panel found that although the reinstatement application was weak, special circumstances were not established sufficiently to warrant departure from the usual principle that each party bears its own costs.

• Sentient Corp Holding Pty Ltd lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 48216 owners corp
• Duy Tran lot owner
• Demetria Chelepy lot owner
• Mathew Crawshaw lot owner
• Stephen Travis party

The Appeal Panel removed Stephen Travis as an appellant, dismissed his applications for correction, and found the appeal was validly instituted by Sentient Corp Holding Pty Ltd as a party to the original proceedings, with the appeal to be listed for a call over.

REINSTATEMENT INSURANCE - whether the body corporate has correctly determined the contribution to be levied on each lot owner. APPORTIONMENT OF PREMIUM – extent to which body corporate should adjust the contribution payable by the owner of lot 2 under section 191(2)(c) of the Accommodation Module. DEBT RECOVERY – whether an adjudicator has jurisdiction to determine the application where . Act, ss 94, 269(3)(c), 270(1)(b); Accommodation Module, ss188, 191.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

REINSTATEMENT INSURANCE - whether the body corporate has correctly determined the contribution to be levied on each lot owner. APPORTIONMENT OF PREMIUM – extent to which body corporate should adjust the contribution payable by the owner of lot 2 under section 191(2)(c) of the Accommodation Module. DEBT RECOVERY – whether an adjudicator has jurisdiction to determine the application where debt recovery proceedings have been instituted in the District Court. Act, ss 94, 269(3)(c), 270(1)(b); Accommodation Module, ss188, 191.

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

BUDGETS – whether the administrative and sinking fund budgets comply with statutory requirements; whether the resolution adopting the budgets should be declared void. GENERAL MEETING – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in convening a general meeting to remove the chairperson from the committee – whether the resolution to call the meeting and the subsequent resolution to remove the committee member should be declared void. COMMITTEE RESOLUTION – whether a vote outside of a committee meeting ratifying an earlier action is valid. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5); Standard Module, ss 44(2)(f), 160, 162(2)

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

BY-LAWS – whether the respondent is parking vehicles and boats in breach of the by-laws. Act, ss 59, 182A, 183AA, 184

On the tribunal register; not yet read into parties, outcome, and amount. Read the source decision.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 100777 owners corp
• Ausbao (286 Sussex St) Pty Ltd lot owner
• Bright & Duggan Pty Ltd manager

Application for leave to appeal from the primary judge's refusal to stay proceedings in favour of expert determination was dismissed, with the Court holding that no reasonably clear injustice had been demonstrated and that the dispute was about the agency agreement with the strata manager rather than about the strata management statement itself.