The Meadows [2000] QBCCMCmr 42 (1 February 2000)

RA MeekREFERENCE: 0618-1999

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	20691
Name of Scheme:	The Meadows
Address of Scheme:	22/ 154 Currumbin Creek Road CURRUMBIN QLD 4223

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to an application made under the abovementioned Act by the body corporate

RA MeekI hereby order that within 6 weeks of the date of this order, the owner of lot 48, Mark John Batty shall remove and keep removed the dog presently being kept by him, from the lot and the scheme generally. n

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0618-1999

“The Meadows” CTS 20691

The applicant, the Body Corporate for The Meadows, has sought an order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act) requiring that a dog kept by the owner of lot 48, Mark John Batty, be removed.

Section 223(1) 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 body corporate states that –

Mr Batty has a Bull Terrier dog weighing 24 kilo’s. Under our by-laws, no dog is to be kept over 15 kilos. By-law 12 states one small dog not over 15 kilo’s. We have written two letters to Mr Batty asking for a certificate from the vet but he refuses to give one – but admits the dog weighs 24 kilos, and is growing bigger and getting heavier each week. He refuses to remove the dog.

We have had a complaint that the dog has been out of the yard – on the common property – without a leash, or attendant. Also paces up and down the fence barking as people go by. Residents are afraid of the dog. We wish the dog to be removed.

By-law 12, headed keeping of animals, provides that –

An owner or occupier shall be permitted to keep upon their lot:

(a)	a maximum of two small caged birds; and / or
(b)	one cat or small (not more than 15kg) dog

PROVIDED ALWAYS that such animal shall not be permitted to cause any annoyance to any other owner or occupier of a lot and the owner or occupier of the lot shall be responsible for the immediate cleaning of all areas fouled by such animal. Otherwise, an owner or occupier of a lot shall not bring or keep any animal or permit an invitee to bring or keep any animal upon his lot or the common property.

This office sought a submission in response to the application from Mr Batty. Mr Batty did not reply to the notice inviting submissions. I can only assume from this that Mr Batty does not deny the accuracy of the body corporate’s grounds to this application.

Based on the information provided to me by the body corporate, and not refuted by Mr Batty, I am satisfied that the dog being kept at the lot by Mr Batty is heavier than the maximum weight provided for in the by-law. Moreover, the by-law provides that an animal shall not be permitted to cause any annoyance to any other owner or occupier. It seems from the information provided that Mr Batty’s dog is causing a nuisance to other owners or occupiers in their use and enjoyment of the common property. In the circumstances, I intend to order that Mr Batty remove and keep removed the dog from the lot and the common property of the scheme.