Decisions table

GENERAL MEETING RESOLUTION – whether a resolution to engage a utilities service contractor was valid - where proposed expenditure exceeded Relevant Limit for Major Spending – whether two quotations required. Act, ss 94, 276; Accommodation Module, s 163

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

Utility infrastructure – where a drain located on common property is blocked – whether the drain is a body corporate responsibility to maintain – whether the committee’s decision to refuse reimbursement to unblock the drain was unreasonable. Act, ss 20, 94(2); Accommodation Module, ss 170(4)

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

BODY CORPORATE RECORDS – whether the body corporate must provide in-person inspection of records – whether records available on demand via a digital platform is the body corporate giving copies. Act, s 250

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

BY-LAWS / REASONABLENESS – where the applicant alleges residents at the scheme are parking in contravention of the scheme’s vehicle by-law – whether an order that the body corporate enforce the by-law is warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 31, 59, 94, 100, 185

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

• Ms Simone Selkirk lot owner
• The Owners - Strata Plan No 2661 owners corp

The appeal was allowed against the owners corporation and the matter was remitted for re-determination on the scope of work required to fulfil the owners corporation's strict duty to maintain and repair common property in the appellant's bathroom and the amount of rent and losses from 5 December 2020.

BY-LAWS – whether noise amounts to unreasonable interference –applicant’s obligation to prove application – limited evidence of material impact Act, ss 59, 94, 167, 180

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

MAINTENANCE/PROPERTY DAMAGE – where the applicant alleges the respondent failed to maintain his lot and this led to the applicant’s lot sustaining water damage and requiring repairs – whether the respondent should be ordered to reimburse the applicant for the repairs. Act, ss 20, 252E(5); Accommodation Module, ss 170, 201

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

Scheme dispute - Whether horizontal lower boundary of balcony is upper surface of the tiled floor or upper surface of concrete slab

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

EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE– whether the body corporate committee should be granted permission to undertake emergency expenditure Act, s243A; Accommodation Module, ss 162, 187, 188

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

• Malcom Reid lot owner
• Leonie Palmer lot owner
• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 5362 owners corp
• Peter Bonello lot owner
• Catherine Munayer lot owner
• John Wynne lot owner
• David Withers lot owner

The application for appointment of a compulsory strata manager under s237 and removal of strata committee members under s238 was dismissed.

ANIMAL BY-LAW – where a by-law requires body corporate approval to keep pets at the scheme; where approval for one cat was granted and subsequently rescinded due to breaches of the committee’s conditions of approval, and approval for a second cat was never granted; whether the respondent must comply with the conditions of approval or remove her cats from the scheme. Act, ss 59(2)(b), 94.

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 20548 owners corp
• Mount Street 4 Pty Ltd atf Mount Street 4 Unit Trust developer
• Keith Anthony Bond lot owner

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to join 15 dissenting lot owners to the proceedings for the purpose of the conciliation conference only, finding the statutory scheme for strata renewal plans prescriptive and comprehensive with adequate notice provisions, and that joinder was not necessary or of utility.

BODY CORPORATE PROPERTY – whether the body corporate has an obligation to provide occupier with keys to common property doors at no cost; whether the body corporate acted unreasonably. Act, ss94, 270

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

INTERIM ORDERS – where affected persons have made a request that interim orders are cancelled, whether adjudicator has jurisdiction and remains satisfied interim orders are warranted. Act, ss 94(2), 279

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

INTERIM ORDERS – whether interim orders are warranted in the circumstances. ADJUDICATOR POWERS – whether Adjudicator can be satisfied that an application raises a serious legal question and the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. SDW2 Pty Ltd v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd [[2017] QSC 001](/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%5b2017%5d%20QSC%20001 "View LawCiteRecord") Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [[2006] HCA 46](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2006/46.html "View Case") Act, ss 94(1), 100(5), 279 Standard Module, s 180.

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

INTERIM ORDER – where body corporate resolved to carry out works to common property – where applicant challenges validity of the decision – whether interim order should be granted in the circumstances. Act, s279(1)

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

MOTION – BODY CORPORATE MANAGER – where a motion to engage a body corporate manager did not provide two or more tenders – whether two or more tenders are required by the BUGT Act for a motion to engage a body corporate manager – where the schedule of fees and charges in the executed body corporate manager agreement was varied from the proposed agreement, but apparently in favour of the body corporate – whether to declare the resolution to adopt the agreement was invalid GENERAL MEETING – VOTING – where voting papers were invited and accepted by email – whether emailed votes may be valid under the legislation – whether an ordinary resolution is required to authorise voting by email GENERAL MEETING – QUORUM – where a general meeting proceeded allegedly without a quorum – whether to order that the motion decided at the meeting is void GENERAL MEETING – VOTING – CONFLICT OF INTEREST – where committee member who proposed a motion to engage a body corporate manager voted on the motion – whether there was a conflict of interest GENERAL MEETING – VOTING – CONFLICT OF INTEREST – where body corporate manager ran a general meeting and counted votes on a motion to engage them – whether there was a conflict of interest Act, ss 47(1), 50; Schedule 2, Part 2, ss 3 and 5

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

BY-LAWS – where the applicant alleges the respondent is parking on the common property without approval – where the applicant alleges invitees of the respondent are parking on the common property without approval – whether this amounts to a contravention of the by-laws – whether orders are warranted. Act, ss 185, 280.

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

ANIMAL BY-LAW – whether an order should be made requiring the removal of dogs from a lot. Act, s 270(1)(e).

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

BY-LAWS; REASONABLENESS – whether a by-law prohibiting short-term and holiday letting is invalid and should be removed from the community management statement; whether the body corporate acted unreasonably when refusing to consent to an owner’s application to the local government for a material change of use to allow short-term letting. Act, ss 94(2), 100(5), 180(3)&(4).

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

BODY CORPORATE RECORDS – whether the ability to access a body corporate’s financial institution account is a record – whether financial reports that have not been created are body corporate records – where body corporate otherwise failed to permit applicant to inspect body corporate records – whether application appears to be frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or without substance. Act, ss 205, 270.

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

CHANGE OF FINANCIAL YEAR – whether an order should be made to change the body corporate’s financial year end date. Act, s 283

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

• The Owners - Strata Plan No 97315 owners corp
• Icon Co (NSW) Pty Ltd builder

The court ordered that there be no order as to the costs of the reference, with each party bearing its own costs, because neither party established the case for which it primarily contended on the sunshade defects issue.

• The Owners-Strata Plan No 53865 owners corp
• JPG Investments Pty Ltd lot owner
• Conrad Corporation Pty Ltd lot owner

The appeal of the owners corporation against the Tribunal's order requiring it to consent to the lot owners' development application for construction of additional storeys was dismissed, with the original Tribunal orders upheld.

BY-LAWS – whether installation of a granny flat variation to external appearance – where lot owner directed to architectural review committee in error – role of the body corporate and its committee. Act, ss 94, 97, 100

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

INTERIM ORDERS – whether interim orders are warranted in the circumstances. ADJUDICATOR POWERS – whether Adjudicator can be satisfied that an application raises a serious legal question and the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. SDW2 Pty Ltd v JLF Corporation Pty Ltd [[2017] QSC 001](/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%5b2017%5d%20QSC%20001 "View LawCiteRecord") Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [[2006] HCA 46](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2006/46.html "View Case") Act, ss 94(1), 100(5), 279 Standard Module, s 180.

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

• The Owners-Strata Plan No 92334 owners corp
• Peng Zheng lot owner
• Ning Lu lot owner

The respondents were found to have contravened by-law 27 by parking vehicles on common property in breach of a Notice to Comply with By-laws dated 21 December 2022, and were ordered to pay a penalty of $550.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – whether the sale of removed fixtures from the common property was actioned on behalf of the body corporate or individuals in their private capacity – whether money was given to the body corporate or individuals in their private capacity. Act, ss 150, 270(1)(c); Accommodation Module, ss 157, 180.

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

REIMBURSEMENT FROM BODY CORPORATE – where the body corporate invoiced an owner for a charge levied by the Queensland Fire and Emergency Services for an unwanted smoke alarm activation in the owner’s lot – where the owner paid the invoice yet disputes the body corporate’s power to recover the money - whether the body corporate must reimburse the owner.

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

No. 2

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – where a motion to reimburse the owner of Lot 2 for works he carried out at the scheme was considered at an extraordinary general meeting and passed – where the applicant submits the body corporate’s decision to pass the motion was unlawful and unreasonable – whether the orders sought by the applicant are warranted in the circumstances. Act, ss 94, 152, 270, 280, 281; Accommodation Module, ss 163, 176, 170, 201

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

WHERE VOTING RIGHTS IMPROPERLY DENIED – section 92 Act Order that may be made by a Referee in such circumstances. Power of Referee to declare purported Resolution to be a nullity. Extension of time to apply for order under section 92(2) Act Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 ss 73, 76, 77, 92.

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

COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; EXCLUSIVE USE; GENERAL MEETING RESOLUTION – where a new community management statement was recorded to correct errors in the existing statement with respect to the allocation of exclusive use parking spaces on common property – whether the new statement is invalid because the motion to record it was not passed by resolution without dissent, the statement did not include an explanation of the lot entitlements in effect at the scheme, or the exclusive use parking arrangements in the statement are inequitable – whether the applicant should be allocated a new undercover exclusive use parking space or the body corporate should convene a general meeting to consider it. Act, ss 62, 66(1)(db), 171(2)(b), 270, 280, 339; Standard Module, s 84.

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

EGM RESOLUTION striking SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION – whether valid. Act, s 150; Accommodation Module, ss 89(3)(b), 106, 150(1), 152(2), 163

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

BY-LAWS – whether an owner has created noise in breach of a by-law Act, ss 167, 184

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

BY-LAWS – determining applicable by-laws for the scheme – whether hanging washing and parking in shared driveway a contravention of the by-laws – whether lot owner must take reasonable steps to ensure invitees do not interfere with lawful use of common property – whether the respondent has contravened the by-laws – whether orders are warranted. Act, ss 94, 280, 339

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

MAINTENANCE – REIMBURSEMENT – whether the body corporate was liable for various claimed maintenance failures – whether the applicant sufficiently evidenced claimed expenses for attending to maintenance from an admitted body corporate maintenance failure Act, s 94; Standard Module, s 180

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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY – where the respondents painted the exterior of their side of the building in a different colour – whether the painting was agreed to – required standard for decision-making by a body corporate. Small Schemes Module, ss 106, 112

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

GENERAL MEETING MOTION – whether decision to not pass a motion at a general meeting was unreasonable – whether order giving effect to the motion should be made – change in liability for supply of utility service Act, ss 94, 196; Standard Module, s 210.

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

Owners Corporations; Costs

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

• The Owners – Strata Plan No 13631 owners corp
• Peter McGrath lot owner
• Kate Elizabeth Barrington lot owner

Both the applicant's and first respondent's applications for costs were dismissed as special circumstances warranting a costs order were not established.

BY-LAWS – parties to the dispute – whether the respondent has parked vehicles on common property visitor parking spaces in breach of the by-law – whether orders are warranted. Act, ss 94, 184-6

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

MAINTENANCE / PROPERTY DAMAGE – where the applicant alleges a leak in the common property roof caused damage to her lot and a loss of rental income – whether the body corporate should reimburse the applicant for the expenses she incurred and carry out further repairs to the applicant’s lot Act, ss 152, 276, 281; Small Schemes Module, ss 99

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

BY-LAWS - MAINTENANCE – whether the respondent must repair a broken window in their lot. Accommodation Module, ss 170, 201, 202

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

IMPROVEMENTS – where owner has installed fence on common property - whether body corporate approval had been obtained – whether by-laws have been breached – whether approval requires ordinary resolution – whether installation of the fence amounts to a disposition of common property. Act, s184; Standard Module, ss 184(2),187

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

EXCLUSIVE USE BY-LAW – whether a motion requiring a resolution without dissent failed to pass because of opposition that was unreasonable. Act, ss 62, 170, 171, Schedule 5 Item 10.

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.

• The Owners – Strata Plan No. 64807 owners corp
• Sunaust Properties Pty Ltd contractor

The application to dismiss and transfer proceedings to Supreme Court were refused; proceedings stayed pending finalisation of Supreme Court proceedings; application to amend refused; costs reserved.

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ORDER – where the body corporate has imposed entry and exit access conditions on the applicant’s pet approval – where the applicant argues the entry and exit conditions are oppressive and unreasonable – whether the circumstances warrant granting an interim order in this case. Act, ss 94, 100

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

Owners Corporations; Costs

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