Magdala House [2000] QBCCMCmr 569 (7 November 2000)

P J HANLYREFERENCE: 0614-2000

INTERIM ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	2338
Name of Scheme:	Magdala House
Address of Scheme:	12 Magdala Street ASCOT QLD 4007

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

Loretta Maria Accornero (formerly Giudice) and Kathryn May Kirby, the owners of lots 4 and 2 respectively



I hereby order that the application for an interim order that original motions as proposed by Loretta Maria Accornero (formerly Giudice) for the extraordinary general meeting scheduled for 9 November 2000 be reinstated, is dismissed.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0614-2000

“Magdala House” CMS 2338

The applicants Loretta Maria Accornero (formerly Giudice) and Kathryn May Kirby, the owners of lots 4 and 2, have sought the following order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act), quote -

1.	To have original motions reinstated as per my fax dated 11.10.00.
2.	We are seeking to have all motions on the agenda of the EGM 9 November 2000 proposed by the treasurer/body corporate manager be withdrawn.

The applicants have also sought the following interim order of an adjudicator, quote -

To have original motions reinstated as per my fax dated 11.10.00.

Section 225(1) of the Act provides that an adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates. An adjudicator’s order may contain ancillary or consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate (section 230(1)).

In the supporting grounds, one of the applicants states that the wording of the motions which she had proposed for the next extraordinary general meeting has been altered by the body corporate manager, such that the applicant believes that the impact and serious nature of the motions has been reduced.

The body corporate manager was invited to respond to the application. In reply, the body corporate manager stated that the wording of the motions as originally proposed by one of the applicants was changed following a telephone conversation between the body corporate manager and that applicant on 11 October 2000. The body corporate manager further stated that the changes which were made did not alter the motions, but limited the number of words in the motions. The body corporate manager further stated that the applicant did not wish to place an addendum to the motion, as she considered that the engineers’ reports were sufficient.

I am satisfied that the motions appearing on the agenda of the meeting scheduled for 9 November 2000 adequately reflect the intention of the applicant. If the applicant is present in person at the meeting, then she may wish to speak in favour of the motion, and, provided that the time involved to make such a statement is reasonable, I would expect that the chairperson would allow such a statement to be made.

A final order, regarding order 2 of the final orders sought, will be made in due course after the matter has been investigated in accordance with the usual processes undertaken by this office.