Istana View [2000] QBCCMCmr 79 (17 February 2000)

C G YOUNGREFERENCE: 0227-1999

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	22878
Name of Scheme:	Istana View
Address of Scheme:	Shrouds Point Mooring ROBINA QLD 4226

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

United Landcorp (Int) Pty Ltd, the then owner of Lots 12,14,19,21,31,33,34 and 35,


C G YOUNGI hereby order that the application for an order that “For Sale” signs be removed from certain lots, is dismissed.2n
STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0227-1999

“Istana View” CTS 22878

The applicant United Landcorp (Int) Pty Ltd, who was the owner of Lots 12,14,19,21,31,33,34 and 35 at the time of making application, has sought the following order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (“the Act”), quote -

The body corporate to enforce body corporate by-laws No 6 & 34. To seek the removal of 4 sale signs from Lots 12, 14, 19, 21, 31, 33, 34 and 35 ASAP at Istana View.

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 ma contain ancillary or consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate (section 230(1)).

This application was made by the developer, United Landcorp (Int) Pty Ltd, when it was still the owner of a number of lots in the scheme, in April 1999. The complaint concerned the erection of “for sale” signs by persons other than the developer, in contravention of By-law 34.

This is one of two applications concerning the applicant’s involvement with the scheme, the other being Application 488-98 which alleged the applicant owed moneys to the body corporate. Following the making of both applications the developer encountered financial difficulties which eventuated in it being placed in liquidation and, I understand, the company principal and nominee leaving the country.

As a consequence of these events unfolding, both applications were held over. The applicant for Application 488-98 has now withdrawn that application as the matters complained of are now at an end. As the developer is no longer an owner and the subject of the dispute is not a personal claim or other such a matter that should be continued, the applicant no longer has standing and I have therefore dismissed the application.