Parkview Gardens [2000] QBCCMCmr 48 (4 February 2000)

P G DanielsREFERENCE: 0687-1999

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	24525
Name of Scheme:	Parkview Gardens
Address of Scheme:	10 Geeba Street SLACKS CREEK QLD 4127

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

Ms Jean Evans, a co-owner of lots 16 and 29

P G DanielsI hereby order that the application for an order that:

Decisions made on motions at extraordinary general meetings on 31 May 1999, 16 June 1999 and 13 October 1999 are declared void and only resubmitted to members of the Body Corporate at a new EGM when breaches of regulations have been remedied

is dismissed.1n

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0687-1999

“Parkview Gardens” CTS 24525

The applicant Ms Jean Evans, a co-owner of lots 16 and 29, has sought an order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act) that:

Decisions made on motions at extraordinary general meetings on 31 May 1999, 16 June 1999 and 13 October 1999 are declared void and only re-submitted to members of the Body Corporate at a new extraordinary general meeting when breaches of regulations have been remedied.

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)).

The applicant seeks to invalidate the entirety of three meetings that were held on 31 May 1999, 16 June 1999 and 13 October 1999.

Section 193 of the Act is of relevant to the meetings on 31 May 1999 and 16 June 1999. Section 193 provides as follows:

ú

Time limit on certain applications

193.(1) This section applies to an application for an order declaring void—

(a) a meeting of the committee for the body corporate, or a general meeting of the body corporate; or

(b) a resolution of the committee or body corporate; or

(c) the election of an executive or other member of the committee.

(2) The application must be made within 3 months after—

(a) if subsection (1)(a) applies—the meeting; or

(b) if subsection (1)(b) applies—the meeting at which the resolution was passed or purported to be passed; or

(c) if subsection (1)(c) applies—the meeting at which the executive or other member was elected.

(3) However, if the making of the application does not comply with subsection (2)—

(a) the commissioner must deal with the application (including making a case management recommendation for the application) as if the making of the application complied with subsection (2); and

(b) an adjudicator to whom the application is referred for specialist or department adjudication may, for good reason, waive the non-compliance.

An application to invalidate a general meeting or a resolution of a general meeting must be brought within 3 months of the meeting or “good reason” must be shown for the non-compliance. The application in this case was not made until 15 November 1999. It was made more than 3 months after the meetings on 31 May 1999 and 16 June 1999. The applicant must therefore show “good reason” why I should waive non-compliance with the requirement of bringing the application within 3 months for these meetings.

In the appeal of Weeks v. Commissioner for Body Corporate (Maroochydore District Court Appeal 13/99) Judge Dodds made the following statement about section 193 at pages 4 and 5 of the judgment:

“... the objects of the Act, for instance section 5(a) and (h) militate against too strict or legalistic a view about good reason for waiving non-compliance with the time limit. What will be required is a balancing of the length of the delay; the reason for the non-compliance; the effect of delay on others who are affected by the matter in dispute and importantly, whether apart from the question of non-compliance with the time requirement, an applicant will be entitled to the relief sought. The applicant, being the person seeking a waiver, will have the task overall of satisfying the adjudicator that the time limit should be waived in all the circumstances.”

It will be observed that one of the factors that needs to be considered when assessing whether the non-compliance with section 193 should be waived is whether the applicant is entitled to the relief sought. I will initially consider that issue in respect of the meetings on 31 May 1999 and 16 June 1999 prior to determining whether I should waive non-compliance with section 193.

1.	31 May 1999 EGM

This meeting passed nine resolutions without dissent in respect of the future development of the scheme.

This scheme provides residential accommodation for elderly persons. It was originally intended that the scheme be developed in four stages. Stages 1 and 2 have already been constructed and are being used. It was subsequently decided to construct stages 3 and 4 in one stage. They are still in the process of development and being sold. The developer for the final stage is named Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd. It has made a submission and has otherwise been represented in this matter by Bruce Gent.

The resolutions facilitated two important matters for the development of the final stage of the scheme. Firstly, 677m² of common property was transferred to the one lot which, at that time, was the land for the final stage of development. At the same time 677m² of the lot was transferred to the common property. The purpose was to rearrange the boundaries of the land for the final stage. Secondly, the resolutions provided for the subdivision of land for the final stage into lots 30 to 50.

The applicant seeks to invalidate the meeting on a number of grounds. I will consider each of them separately.

The Committee did not prepare an agenda for the meeting.

I have been provided with a copy of the agenda that was forwarded to owners with voting papers. Mr Gent in his submission states that the agenda was prepared in consultation with the Secretary, Body Corporate Manager and a committee member. It seems clear from the material that the Committee for this Body Corporate did not pass a resolution to approve the agenda at a properly constituted Committee meeting. This is a contravention of section 43 of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 1997 (the Regulation).

The issue that needs to be addressed is whether this contravention has any invalidating effect on the meeting. In my view the contravention does not have such an effect. It has not been argued that the agenda was defective in any way or that it had been secretly prepared such that suspicions might be raised about the intent of calling the meeting. I decline to invalidate the meeting on this basis.

Without dissent motions were amended and passed without the consent of 10 owners

Mr Gent of Partnering Dynamics has drawn to my attention the amendments that were made at the meeting. The meeting was not attended by all of the owners.

Section 55 of the Regulation provides how motions may be amended at general meetings as follows:

ú

Amendment of motions at general meetings [SM, s 57]

55.(1) A motion may be amended at a general meeting by the persons present, and having the right to vote, at the meeting.

(2) However, an amendment cannot be made that changes the subject matter of the motion.

(3) In counting the votes cast for and against a motion to amend a motion, or an amended motion, all persons who are not present personally or by proxy at the meeting, but would, if present, have the right to vote, must be taken to have voted against the motion.

Sub-section 3 is of particular importance. It has application in respect of two types of motions. Firstly, a motion to amend a motion. Secondly, voting on the amended motion. In both cases, “persons who are not present personally or by proxy at the meeting, but would, if present, have the right to vote, must be taken to have voted against the motion.”

Mr Gent of Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd has drawn to my attention three amendments that were made to the “without dissent”resolutions. They were as follows:

1.	Two community management statements (CMS) were approved at the meeting. The first statement related to registration of a plan that changed the boundaries between the common property and the lot that was the land for the final stage of development. It was noted at the meeting that the by-laws that formed part of the CMS had been changed in a minor respect. The change occurred to By-law 53. By-law 53 gave certain rights to the original developer, R.H. & S.E. Johnson Pty Ltd. The new By-laws changed the name to Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd, the developer of the final stage. The minutes of the meeting indicate that Mr Maher confirmed that the By-laws would not be changed. The By-laws have subsequently been registered. They did not contain the change.
2.	Schedule B of the CMS was amplified. Schedule B provides a brief explanation of the development of scheme land.
3.	The above amendments were also made to the second CMS that was approved. The second CMS related to the registration of a plan that subdivided lot 101 into lots 30 to 50 for the final stage of development. Additionally, some lot entitlements in the second CMS were changed. Lots 34 and 35 were increased to 12. Lots 46 and 48 were decreased to 11. Lot 49 was decreased to 12.

In my view section 55 of the Regulation is of application to these amendments even though the wording of the motions was not changed. In both cases the CMS’s were circulated prior to the general meeting that determined whether they would be approved. In my view the CMS’s merged with the wording of the motions such that any change to a CMS was a change to the relevant motion.

It is a requirement of section 55 that persons who are not personally present or present by proxy are taken to vote against an amended motion. In this case there were many persons who were not personally present or present by proxy. Their votes should have counted against the motions that were changed. As the motions required resolutions without dissent, then the motions should have been defeated.

However, in assessing this issue I have taken into account the following matters. It is highly unlikely that an owner would have voted against the motions had he/she been aware of the amendments. The change to the By-laws was very minor. The change to Schedule B of the CMS’s has no substantive effect. The change to the lot entitlements could not have effected current owners except the developer, Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd. Overall, the changes were minor, without substance or irrelevant to then current owners. In these circumstances I would not invalidate the meeting on this ground.

Inadequate and misleading explanatory notes accompanying motions for meeting on 31 May 1999

I have read the explanatory notes and do not find them to be misleading. The notes are quite brief. However, when they are read with the motions I am of the view that the matters going before the general meeting were adequately explained.

Full and accurate minutes have not been reported

There is a requirement for “full and accurate” minutes to be kept: section 57 of the Regulation. However, the failure to keep such minutes is not a ground on which to invalidate a meeting. I will not consider this ground again in respect of the meetings on 16 June 1999 and 13 October 1999.

I am of the view that the grounds submitted by the applicant do not establish a basis on which to invalidate the meeting. I will now consider other matters that are relevant to whether I should waive non-compliance with section 193. The applicant has stated that the primary reason that she did not lodge an application is that she didn’t know that she could lodge an official complaint. I give this reason minimal weight. The applicant states other reasons that are more related to the merits of the dispute rather than section 193. The delay has been lengthy considering the fact that the resolutions passed at the meeting related to the development of the scheme. I take into account that a substantial amount of work has been performed in reliance on the resolutions. In all the circumstances, I decline to waive the non-compliance with section 193 in respect of the meeting on 31 May 1999. However, I also find that even if there had been compliance with section 193, there is no basis on which to invalidate the meeting.

2.	16 June 1999 EGM

I will separately consider each of the grounds which the applicant has submitted as a basis to invalidate the meeting.

The Body Corporate in its budget failed to levy the owner of a lot with a contribution proportionate to the contribution schedule entitlement. At an EGM on 16 June 1999 the budget was reconfirmed in full knowledge by the Body Corporate officers that it did not levy the owner of lot 100, Partnering Dynamics with a proportionate contribution.

This ground is also relevant to the meetings on 31 May 1999 and 13 October 1999. My consideration of this ground will also extend to those meetings.

The budgets for this Body Corporate were approved at its annual general meeting on 13 May 1999. At that time the land for the final stage was lot 100. It had a lot entitlement of 230.

However, the budgets did not provide for the owner of lot 100, Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd, to be levied with a contribution. That issue was addressed at a general meeting on 16 June 1999 where the following two motions were passed:

“Motion 8: That the Administrative Fund Budget of $32,960.00 be approved and that a contribution of $143.30 per lot entitlement per annum be determined and be due and payable in advance by four (4) instalments on the following dates:

Per lot entitlement

01.01.99 - 31.03.00 $35.82 (Issued)

01.04.99 - 30.06.99 $35.82 (Issued)

01.07.99 - 30.09.99 $35.82

01.10.99 - 31.12.99 $35.82

and that a contribution of $143.30 per lot entitlement, per annum for the first period of the next budget period commencing on 01.02.00 and be determined as set out below:

01.01.00 - 31.03.00

It was moved by Mrs Evans and seconded by Mr Maher, that the motion be amended by inserting the words “for stages 1 and 2” after the words “Administrative Fund Budget”. The motion was carried by ordinary resolution (Yes:15/No:1/Abstain:0)

The amended motion, was carried by ordinary resolution (Yes:15/No:3/Abstain:0)

Motion 9: That the Sinking Fund Budget of $6366.60 (12 months) be approved and that a contribution of $27.68 per lot entitlement, per annum be determined and be due and payable in advance by four (4) instalments on the following dates:

01.01.99 - 31.03.99 $6.92 (Issued)

01.04.99 - 30.06.99 $6.92 (Issued)

01.07.99 - 30.09.99 $6.92

01.10.99 - 31.12.99 $6.92

and that a contribution of $27.68 per lot entitlement, per annum for the first period of the next budget period commencing on 01.02.00 be determined as set out below:

01.01.00 - 31.01.00

It was moved by Mr Maher and seconded by Mrs Evans, that the motion be amended by inserting the words “for stages 1 and 2” after the words “Sinking Fund Budget”. The motion was carried by ordinary resolution (Yes:17/No:1/Abstain:0)

The amended motion was carried by ordinary resolution (Yes:15/No:3/Abstain:0)

The fact that there was no provision made for levying a contribution on the owner of lot 100, Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd, is a contravention of the legislation. Section 93(1)(a) and (5) of the Regulation clearly provide that each owner must be levied with a contribution. I asked Mr Gent of Partnering Dynamics why his company had not been levied with a contribution. I was told that the former developer did not pay levies as it provided security services. The cost of the security services was off set against contributions. However, I am informed that Partnering Dynamics does not provide security services. It seems the reason Partnering Dynamics is not levied with a contribution is that it is a continuation of a past practice. This is clearly wrong and a contravention of the legislation.

The issue that needs to be addressed is whether the contravention invalidates the meeting on 16 June 1999. Section 47(11)(a) of the Regulation is of relevance to that issue. That section provides as follows:

(11) A person does not have the right to exercise a vote for a particular lot on a motion (other than a motion for which a resolution without dissent is required), or for choosing a member of the committee, if the owner of the lot has not paid to the body corporate—

(a) a contribution, or an instalment of a contribution, owing by the owner to the body corporate, if the contribution or instalment is owing at the time of the meeting;

It will be noted that a person does not have a right to vote at a meeting where a contribution or instalment on a contribution is owing. It seems to me that a contribution is not owing when it has not been levied pursuant to section 93 of the Regulation and where no notice of contribution has been sent to the owner pursuant to section 94 of the Regulation. I find that Partnering Dynamics did have the right to vote at the general meeting on 16 June 1999 in addition to the meetings on 31 May 1999 and 7 October 1999. However, in respect of the meetings on 31 May 1999 and 16 June 1999 it would not matter if Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd had no right to vote as the minutes show that the resolutions would have been passed even without Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd voting.

I have further considered whether I should invalidate the particular motions that approved the budgets and levied the contributions. I am not inclined to do so even though in my view there has been a contravention of the legislation. The motions provide five periods for which contributions are to be levied. Four of those periods have already passed. There is only one remaining ie from 1 January 2000 to 31 March 2000. The relevant motions have been substantially implemented. It seems inappropriate to invalidate the motions at this late stage.

It is a matter for the Body Corporate to determine if it will take action to try and recover contributions from Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd. If the Body Corporate decides to take action it will need to occur at a general meeting.

The Committee did not prepare an agenda for any of the meetings.

I have been provided with Committee meeting minutes on 24 May 1999 from the applicant herself that indicate the agenda was approved by the Committee. This allegation has no substance.

I find that the application to invalidate the meeting on 16 June 1999 lacks merit. The applicant’s reason for non-compliance with section 193 is that she did not know that she could lodge an official complaint. Once again, I give this reason minimal weight. Important resolutions were passed in respect of engaging a body corporate manager and insurance. I decline to make an order invalidating the meeting. Apart from section 193, I would decline to invalidate the meeting.

3.	13 October 1999 EGM

The application to invalidate this meeting was brought within three months of the meeting. It seems to me that this meeting presents the greatest amount of dispute between the parties as Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd used its lot entitlements to defeat motions that otherwise would have been successful.

I will once again consider each of the grounds put forward by the applicant.

Written notice of the EGM was not given to the owner of lot 6

I was informed by the applicant that she sent voting papers to the owner and that the owner did have the opportunity to vote. This obviously is not a ground on which to invalidate the meeting.

The Committee did not prepare the agenda

Mr Gent states in his submission that the agenda was prepared following consultation and correspondence between the body corporate manager, the Chairman, the Secretary and a Committee member.

The applicant’s main complaint about the agenda is that the full Committee had not given proper consideration to the Management and Letting Agreements that were to be approved at the general meeting. I am unwilling to interfere with the meeting on this basis. All owners were given an opportunity to vote on the agreements after they had been circulated. It was the owners who had the right to accept or reject the agreements. Once again, there is no evidence that the agenda was improperly prepared because of the presence of these items.

Partnering Dynamics purported to use proxy after expiry of time

The minutes of the meeting show that Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd exercised powers of attorney in respect of certain lots. I inform Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd, the Body Corporate and the Body Corporate Manager that a power of attorney cannot be used to vote at a meeting in the place of another owner.

I have discussed this matter with Mr Gent and the applicant. I was referred to section 168 of the Act which provides as follows:

ú

Restriction on powers of attorney in favour of original owner

168.(1) If the seller is the original owner, and the buyer gives the seller a power of attorney to act for the buyer, the power may be exercised only in ways, and only for purposes, disclosed in a written statement given to the buyer before the power is given.

(2) The statement must include a detailed description of the circumstances in which the power may be exercised.

(3) A power of attorney mentioned in subsection (1), unless it sooner

expires, expires 1 year after it is given.

Section 168 does not apply to voting rights at a general meeting.

Section 96(1)(b) of the Act makes provision for how a general meeting is to be held as follows:

ú

Body corporate meetings

96.(1) The body corporate for a community titles scheme (“scheme A”)

must—

(a) ...

(b) conduct the meetings—

(i) in the way prescribed under the regulation module; and (ii) to the extent the regulation module does not prescribe the way to conduct meetings—in the way decided by the body corporate.

Section 95 expressly provides for a regulation module to include provisions about the use of proxies in general meetings.

Importantly, the Regulation basically provides voting rights to an owner or a proxy of an owner. There is no provision allowing the use of powers of attorney. They cannot be used.

Powers of attorney have been used in this case. The issue that needs to be addressed is what effect this has on the meeting.

In determining that issue, it must initially be noted that lot 100 was owned by Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd and it had a lot entitlement of 230. Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd could out vote the rest of the Body Corporate exercising those lot entitlements in addition to lot entitlements of other lots owned by it, 13, 25 and 100.

This is what happened in respect of motion 2 – Alterations to Common Property, motion 4 – Addition of 20% Discount, Motion 5 – Penalty interest. Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd used its lot entitlements to defeat these motions when on a straight counting of votes they would have been carried.

I am informed that the only motion where votes were cast by Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd using power of attorney was motion 6. This motion related to approval of the Resident Managers and Letting Agreements. It seems likely that a similar situation occurred in respect of motion 7 which gave approval to affix seals to these agreements although that fact does not have to be resolved for the purposes of this application.

As Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd could have used its lot entitlements to defeat or carry any motion, I would not invalidate the meeting on the basis that powers of attorney were used in respect of motion 6 and perhaps motion 7.

I have gone on to consider whether it was reasonable or would have been reasonable for Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd to exercise its lot entitlement voting power to alter the outcome of motions.

Sections 87 and 114 of the Act require that Body Corporate decisions be reasonable and for the benefit of all owners.

I am concerned that the voting power of Partnering Dynamics Pty Ltd was unreasonable at least in respect of motions 2, 4 and 5. However, there is insufficient information to determine this issue as the application was not made on this basis. I do wish to inform the Body Corporate that the motions which were defeated can be considered again at a new general meeting. If the Body Corporate, fails to pass appropriate resolutions and such a failure is unreasonable, then application can be made to this office for the matter to be considered.

An associated contract exists which has not been disclosed to the Body Corporate

The applicant submits that there have been contraventions of sections 86 and 87 of the Regulation which provide as follows:

ú

Associate supplying goods or services [SM, s 88]

86.(1) This section applies if—

(a) the body corporate is considering entering into, or proposes to enter into, a contract; and

(b) the contract is for the supply of goods or services from a person (the “provider”); and

(c) the provider is an associate of a relevant person; and

(d) the relevant person is aware of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c).

(2) Before the body corporate makes its decision to enter into the contract, the relevant person must give written notice to the body corporate disclosing the relationship between the relevant person and the provider.

(3) If the relevant person does not comply with subsection (2), the body corporate may terminate—

(a) if the relevant person is a body corporate manager—the body corporate manager’s engagement as a body corporate manager; or

(b) if the relevant person is a service contractor—the service contractor’s engagement as a service contractor.

(4) In this section—

“relevant person” means—

(a) a body corporate manager; or

(b) a service contractor who is also a letting agent.

ú

Disclosure of associate contract [SM, s 89]

87.(1) This section applies if the following circumstances exist—

(a) the body corporate is a party to a contract;

(b) the contract is for the supply of goods or services from a person (the “provider”);

(c) the provider is the associate of a relevant person;

(d) the relevant person is aware of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c);

(e) to the knowledge of the relevant person, the body corporate has never been informed, or otherwise become aware, that the provider is the associate of the relevant person.

(2) The relevant person must, in the shortest practicable time after this section commences to apply, give written notice to the body corporate—

(a) identifying the contract; and

(b) disclosing the relationship between the relevant person and the provider.

(3) If the relevant person does not comply with subsection (2), the body corporate may terminate—

(a) if the relevant person is a body corporate manager—the body corporate manager’s engagement as a body corporate manager; or

(b) if the relevant person is a service contractor—the service contractor’s engagement as a service contractor.

(4) In this section—

“relevant person” means—

(a) a body corporate manager; or

(b) a service contractor who is also a letting agent.

The intent of sections 86 and 87 is to prevent the Body Corporate from contracting with a person who is an associate of the body corporate manager or service contractor/letting agent for the scheme without the Body Corporate being aware of the association. Section 256 of the Act defines association. Failure to comply with these sections can result in the engagement of the manager or service contractor being terminated.

The applicant argues that these sections have been contravened in two different ways.

Firstly, that when the manager/letting agreements were approved at the general meeting on 13 October 1999, there was no disclosure of agreements between the proposed manager/letting agent, Quality Care Management Pty Ltd and two persons named the Sheas. It seems that these agreements provide the Sheas are to work for Quality Care in providing the relevant services. There is no contravention of sections 86 and 87. The Body Corporate has not entered into a contract with the Sheas. The Body Corporate has only entered into a contractual relationship with Quality Care.

Secondly, that there is some association between Partnering Dynamics and Quality Care. Mr Gent has indicated to me that there is some tenuous relationship. Whatever the relationship may be, when Quality Care was engaged it was not associated with the then body corporate manager or a service contractor/letting agent for the scheme. There has been no contravention of section 86 and 87.

I should also state that even if sections 86 and 87 are contravened, this does not invalidate a general meeting. These sections provide their own remedies. Subsection 3 of both sections provides that the relevant engagements may be terminated.

Section 84 of the Regulation

One of the grounds on which the applicant seeks to invalidate all meetings is that a service contractor transferred an interest to another party without Body Corporate approval. The applicant has provided no further information in support of this allegation. Even is it is true, it is not a basis on which to invalidate an entire meeting.

Calling a Committee meeting

A complaint that has been raised is the inadequate operation of the Committee for this Body Corporate.

I draw to the attention of the applicant section 25 of the Regulation which provides as follows:

ú

Who may call committee meetings [SM, s 27]

25.(1) A meeting of the committee may be called by—

(a) the secretary or, in the secretary’s absence, the chairperson; or

(b) in the absence of both the secretary and the chairperson—another member of the committee acting with the agreement of enough members to form a quorum at a meeting of the committee.

(2) The secretary or, in the secretary’s absence, the chairperson, must call a meeting if asked, in writing, to call the meeting by enough members of the committee to form a quorum at a meeting of the committee.

(3) The meeting must be held within 21 days after the secretary or

chairperson receives the request to call it.

(4) The secretary and chairperson may both be presumed to be absent if the request for the meeting, addressed to the secretary and chairperson, is given at the address for service of the body corporate, and no reply is received within 7 days.

The applicant will note that the Secretary must call a Committee meeting if asked in writing by enough members to form a quorum. If the Secretary refuses to call a meeting after this procedure has been followed, then an application can be made to this office.

I also wish to draw to the attention of the applicant that this office operates an information line, 1800 060 119 on Body Corporate matters. I encourage the applicant to use this service if she has enquiries about the operation of her Body Corporate.

I have found that there is no basis to make the orders sought. I dismiss the application.