Kalcem Court [2000] QBCCMCmr 219 (18 May 2000)

C G YOUNGREFERENCE: 0776-1999

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	19775
Name of Scheme:	Kalcem Court
Address of Scheme:	2 Queen Street CLEVELAND QLD 4163

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to an application made under the abovementioned Act by the Body Corporate,

C G YOUNGI hereby order that the application for an order that Gregory Reginald and Fay BELL, the co-owners of Lot 29 (known as “Unit 28”), remove two dogs from their lot is dismissed on the grounds that the dogs have already been removed. 2n
STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0776-1999

“Kalcem Court” CTS 19775

The applicant is the body corporate which has sought the following order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (“the Act”), quote -

That the owner of Lot 29 (Unit 28) has on his property two (2) poodle dogs without the permission of the body corporate for Kalcem Court and the body corporate for Kalcem Court requires that the dogs be removed.

Section 223(1) of the Act provides that an adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances (including a declaratory order) to resolve a dispute, in the context of a community titles scheme, about –

(a)	a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the community management statement; or
(b)	the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under this Act or the community management statement; or
(c)	a claimed or anticipated contravention of the terms, or the termination of, or the exercise of rights or powers under the terms of, or the performance of duties under the terms of an engagement contract or an authorisation contract.

An order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting, in a way stated in the order (section 223(2)). An adjudicator’s order may contain ancillary or consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate (section 230(1)).

In the supporting grounds, the applicant states that the policy of the body corporate under its by-laws is that no dogs can be kept within the scheme complex. The chairperson of the body corporate committee, Peter Woodland, states that after purchasing Unit 28 (Lot 29), Mr Bell informed the committee that he had two dogs that he wanted to bring with him. He was informed he could not bring the dogs onto the scheme but, under the by-laws, could make application to the committee for permission to keep the dogs. He was told of the general body corporate policy against the keeping of dogs.

Regardless, the Bell’s subsequently brought the dogs onto the scheme without permission. Occupiers subsequently complained to the committee regarding the behaviour of the dogs, including that they barked continually and ran uncontrolled on the common property. These letters were attached to the application. Notice was served on the Bell’s to remove the dogs.

Since the application, and perhaps because of it, the dogs have seemingly been removed from the scheme. Mr Bell telephoned this office after receiving an invitation to attend mediation on the dispute, advising that he had no dogs on his lot. The chairperson has confirmed that he has not seen or heard the dogs for some weeks nor has the committee received any fresh complaints. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the respondent is no longer keeping any dog on his lot and I have therefore dismissed the application.

The relevant body corporate by-law, By-law 5, requires that an owner or other occupier must obtain the prior written approval of the body corporate before bringing an animal onto the owner’s lot or the common property. That is a by-law a body corporate is empowered to make and it is within its powers to refuse the respondent, and any other occupier, from keeping an animal within the scheme.2n