Coral Sands On Trinity Beach [2001] QBCCMCmr 189 (29 March 2001)

P G DanielsREFERENCE: 0759-2000

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	18185
Name of Scheme:	Coral Sands On Trinity Beach
Address of Scheme:	65 Vasey Esplanade TRINITY BEACH QLD 4879

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

Brian Lawrence McCarty a co-owner of lot 34

1. P G DanielsI hereby order that the Body Corporate for Coral Sands on Trinity Beach community titles scheme 18185 (Coral Sands) must comply with sections 101 and 102 of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 1997 (the Regulation) in respect of expenditure on insurance.

2.	I hereby order that Coral Sands must comply with sections 101 and 102 of the Regulation in respect of expenditure on a body corporate manager.

3.

I further order that an ordinary resolution of Coral Sands that approved motion 8 at its annual general meeting on 15 December 2000 which provided “That under Section 85(1) of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 1997 the Body Corporate engages Body Corporate Services Pty Ltd for a term of three years commencing on 01 January 2001 for a fee of $7,930.00 being an initial rate of $130.00 per Lot plus GST per annum for the purpose of providing administrative services to the Body Corporate, the details on which are contained in the Agreement forwarded to owners.” is invalid and of no effect.

4.	I further order, subject to order 5, that Body Corporate Services Pty Ltd can continue to be the body corporate manager for Coral Sands pursuant to the agreement mentioned in motion 8 and referred to in order 3 for a period of three months from the date of this order.

5.	I further order that order 4 ceases to have effect if within three months from the date of this order:

a.	the Committee of Coral Sands resolves and gives notice to terminate the arrangement with Body Corporate Services Pty Ltd due to any ground mentioned in section 84 of the Regulation or pursuant to the agreement; or
b.	Coral Sands and Body Corporate Services Pty Ltd or another body corporate manager enter into a valid contract for body corporate management; or
c.	Coral Sands considers a motion or motions to engage a body corporate manager at a general meeting and does not resolve to pass a motion to engage a body corporate manager.

6.	I further order that Denis Broad of Body Corporate Services Pty Ltd, 109-113 Spence Street, Cairns must call a general meeting of Coral Sands within 3 months of the date of this order for the purpose of the consideration of motions included on the agenda of the meeting.

7.	I further order that the Committee of Coral Sands must calculate the cost of the landscaping improvement to the common property during the Coral Sands financial year 1999-2000 and if it is greater than $6,100, submit a motion to the general meeting seeking ratification of the expenditure.

8.	I further order that the Committee of Coral Sands must submit a motion to the general meeting seeking ratification of the expenditure of $9852 on a consultant’s report by BCA Consultants.

9.	I further order that the Committee of Coral Sands must submit at least one motion to the general meeting concerning the engagement of a body corporate manager.

10.	I further order that Coral Sands can consider any motion at the general meeting validly before it.

11.	I further order that –

a.	at least 21 days notice of the meeting must be given to lot owners;
b.	notice of the meeting is to be given in accordance with section 40 of the Regulation;
c.	except as provided in these orders, the meeting and all related matters must be conducted in accordance with the Regulation.1n

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0759-2000

“Coral Sands On Trinity Beach” CTS 18185

The applicant, Brian Lawrence McCarty, a co-owner of lot 34, has sought the following orders of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act):

a.)	Order to punish body corporate and Body Corporate Services for spending trust funds in excess of their authority;
b.)	Reject vote to approve insurance quote as no competing bids were obtained
c.)	Reject contract for Body Corporate Services as no competing bids were obtained
d.)	Order body corporate to levy rental charge on letting agent for use of common area (communication lines) owned by the body corporate
e.)	Order reduction of resident manager contract due to GST overcharge
f.)	Order immediate owner assessment in an amount necessary to raise the sinking fund balance to $130,000.00 by the end of this financial year
g.)	Order new sinking fund analysis prepared with reference to existing building deterioration conditions
h.)	Order other penalties to stop the flaunting of laws related to the act; my suggestion is disqualification of 1999-2000 officers and ordering of new election

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 Body Corporate for Coral Sands on Trinity Beach community titles scheme 18185 held its annual general meeting on 15 December 2000 (the meeting). The applicant has raised a number of matters that are in some way related to the meeting or the previous annual general meeting on 17 December 1999. I will consider each of them.

Submissions have been received from Mr Denis Broad of Body Corporate Services the body corporate manager (the manager’s submission), Mr Alan Fisk the chairperson (the chairperson’s submission) and Jeanne Bartell and Denis Bartell of Desert Oak Pty Ltd the resident manager (the resident manager’s submission. The applicant has replied to the submissions (the reply).

1.	Expenditure

A number of financial documents were forwarded with the notice of the meeting as required by the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 1997 (the Regulation). One of these documents is a Statement of Income and Expenditure for the sinking fund in respect of the period 1 October 1999 to 30 September 2000.

It is indicated in that document that the following amounts were expended during the abovementioned period:

Consultant’s Fees $9,852.00

Gardening/Trees/Landscaping $21,951.00

Painting and Surface Finishes $6,800.00

The applicant argues that expenditure of the above amounts contravenes the Regulation in the following ways:

a.	Approved without quotations as required by the act
b.	Over the limit of expenditure allowed by the act for the committee
c.	Expenditure for items UNBUDGETED in the previous year
d.	Failed to increase the sinking fund assessment to pay for these unbudgeted expenses

I will consider each item of expenditure.

1.1	Consultant’s fees

The following is stated in the chairperson’s submission about the fees:

“Consultant’s Fee $9852. BCA Consultants.

Considerable difficulties have been experienced over the last five years in respect of the existing air conditioning installation in the units servicing the bedroom areas.

As this had become a very serious problem the matter was addressed At the Annual General Meeting held in December 1999. At that meeting After considerable discussion it was resolved to engage the services of an Air conditioning Consultant to prepare a report as to what action should Be taken to resolve the problem. Proposals mentioned were one large air Conditioning unit to service the entire complex or individual split system Units to service each individual unit.

BCA Consultants of South Brisbane were engaged to prepare the report, Copy of which dated 1^st March 2000 was circulated to all owners.

The report was very damming and highly critical of the units installed By the builders.”

The minutes of the annual general meeting on 17 December 1999 indicate that there was some discussion about the matter at the end of the meeting.

I have examined the report and note that it was very critical of the air-conditioning then in place.

Prior to giving my view about this matter, I will state the effect of a number of provisions in the Regulation relating to approval of the expenditure of funds.

The Committee of a Body Corporate can authorise expenditure of funds up to the “relevant limit for committee spending”: section 92(1) of the Act and section 101 of the Regulation. That term is defined in the Schedule Dictionary of the Regulation to mean an amount worked out by multiplying the number of lots in the scheme by $100 although the $100 amount can be increased by special resolution. The Body Corporate has not passed a special resolution to that effect. Consequently, the relevant limit for committee spending for this scheme of 61 lots is $6,100.

The Body Corporate in general meeting must specifically approve expenditure above that amount: section 101(1)(a) of the Regulation unless section 101(1)(b), (c) or (d) applies.

There is an additional requirement where the expenditure is above the “relevant limit for major spending”. That term is defined in the Schedule Dictionary of the Regulation to mean an amount worked out by multiplying the number of lots in the scheme by $200. The relevant limit for major spending in this scheme of 61 lots is $12,200. Where spending is above that limit, two quotes must be provided to owners and presented as alternatives on the voting papers: section 102 of the Regulation. Owners can then vote for the quote they want the Body Corporate to accept.

The consultant’s fees are above the relevant limit for committee spending. The Body Corporate in general meeting should have approved the expenditure. The fees are not above the relevant limit for major spending. It was not necessary that owners be provided with two quotes and be given the opportunity to vote on which quote the Body Corporate should accept.

I have been provided with a copy of the sinking fund budget approved at the Body Corporate’s annual general meeting on 17 December 1999. The budget is very brief. It provides for the raising of $27,855 as “Provision for Future Expenditure” after taking account of discounts for early payment in the sum of $3,095. It does not provide for expenditure against individual items as would normally occur with a budget. A sinking fund forecast was prepared by Napier & Blakeley, Quantity Surveyors. For the year 1999, it indicates the amount of $27, 477 should be raised. That amount is close to the budget amount of $27,855.

It is somewhat difficult to address the allegation that the expenditure on the consultant’s report was not budgeted as the budget does not give any details about what is included. However, the cost of the consultant’s report is not in the sinking fund forecast. The cost of the report and the amount to be raised as indicated in the sinking fund forecast is above the budgeted amount. It therefore seems to me that the expenditure on the report has left a shortfall in amount that should be in the sinking fund as indicated by the sinking fund forecast. I will address this matter in more detail below when I consider a further ground of the applicant.

I will make an order that the Committee submit a motion to a general meeting of the Body Corporate that seeks ratification of the expenditure.

1.2 Gardening/Trees/Landscaping

The following is stated in the chairperson’s submission about this expenditure:

“Gardening/trees/landscaping $21957 This expenditure carried out over the 12 month period was considered necessary to maintain the complex in a high and competitive standard. As one of the original owners I consider the initial landscaping was below standard. The problem became worse as the previous Resident Manager took no action to maintain or improve the landscaping and gardens.

In retrospect possible some of the cost could have been charged to the Administration fund.”

The applicant has attached a document headed “Chairman’s Report 2000”. It relevantly states the following:

“Refurbishment from the Body Corporate’s point of view is also necessary – let’s face it, weeds can survive without attention, fertilizer, water etc, but beautiful gardens cannot. So far, Denis has worked from the entrance gardens and foyer, the Moore Street boundary/footpath, the Esplanade footpath and replanted many of the gardens around the pathways to the units. There is still the front inside area to The Esplanade to upgrade and this is scheduled for completion next year when funds are available.”

The following is also indicated further down in the report, “New Gardens installed to 50% of the property so far” and “Culling of 27 palm trees to open up the views and give more light to the apartments”.

The resident manager’s submission relevantly states the following:

“The removal of carefully selected trees was carried out with the subsequent result that many apartments can now enjoy the ocean view. The interior of all the rooms has lightened up considerably and we have noticed a decline in the growth of mould both inside the units and on the pathways.

.........

Before taking over the management of Coral Sands, we were well aware that the complex overall was tired both inside and out. The gardens showed a complete lack of attention and care. The Moore Street boundary could only be described as a disaster, the beach side was no better with numerous dead plants and bare earth instead of lawn in front of the three bedroom apartments. The entrance and foyer, the first impression of our resort by the arriving guest, was a disgrace with some gardens totally devoid of plants and displaying hard impacted earth. No garden is going to survive for years without continual attention, water or fertiliser. The only survivors were the palm trees, the voracious fern choking surrounding plants and weeds. We had to carry out extensive repairs to the sprinkler system to get water to most of the property. The state of neglect was certainly such that capital expenditure was required – these gardens and lawns were beyond maintenance and needed complete renewal with professional help. In saying this, only a few gardens at a time were tackled rather than stripping the budget of a lump sum.”

Overall, the amount of $21,951.00 is above the limits for committee and major spending.

However, that amount was spent during the year at different times. In order to determine whether expenditure should have been approved at general meeting, it is necessary to determine what part of the expenditure formed a project: section 101(2) of the Regulation. If a number of proposals for expenditure form a project, the overall amount is taken into account for the purposes of section 101 of the Regulation.

There are no details before me about how much of the $21,951.00 was spent on the project of re-establishing the gardens and how much was spent on routine maintenance. I intend to order the Body Corporate to determine the cost of the project and if it is in excess of the relevant limit for committee spending, to seek Body Corporate ratification of the expenditure by submission of a relevant motion at a general meeting.

The applicant has raised the following additional specific ground in respect of this matter, “It is not appropriate that the expenditure for landscaping was removed from the sinking fund, as this is not of a capital nature.” Section 99(1) of the Regulation provides how the sinking fund may be applied as follows:

Application of administrative and sinking funds [SM, s 101]

99.(1) The sinking fund may be applied towards—

(a) spending of a capital or non-recurrent nature; and

(b) the periodic replacement of major items of a capital nature; and

(c) other spending that should reasonably be met from capital.

(2) All other spending of the body corporate must be met from the

administrative fund.

Examples—

1. The cost of repainting the common property or replacing airconditioning plant

would be paid from the sinking fund.

2. The cost of insurance would be paid from the administrative fund.

It seems to me from the brief details provided that at least some of the expenditure was of a capital nature eg the one-off improvements to parts of the gardens. There may be some expenditure that should not have come from the sinking fund. That is recognised in the chairperson’s submission as he relevantly states, “In retrospect possible some of the cost should have been charged to the Administration fund.” However, there are insufficient details provided to determine if any of the expenditure could have come from the administration fund. I do not propose to make an order in respect of the matter.

The expenditure is also not in the sinking fund forecast. As with the consultant fee expenditure, I will consider that matter below.

1.3	Painting and Surface Finishes

The chairperson’s submission relevantly states the following about the matter:

“Repairs to the exterior woodwork on the wall of the restaurant $6800 Painting of the exterior of the restaurant $4323. Payment of both amounts Were approved at the Extraordinary General Meeting held on 13^th June 2000.”

The minutes of the extraordinary general meeting on 13 June 2000 are attached to the chairperson’s submission. There are three motions relating to repairs to the restaurant. They are as follows:

“2 REPAIRS TO EXTERIOR WOODWORK ORDINARY RESOLUTION

That the completed repairs to the exterior woodwork on the wall of the restaurant at a cost of $4,323.70 be ratified and payment be met from the Sinking Fund.

RESOLVED that Motion 2 be carried Yes 21 No 1 Abstain 1 Invalid 0

3 REPAINTING OF EXTERIOR OF RESTAURANT ORDINARY RESOLUTION

That the completed painting of the exterior of the restaurant at a cost of $6,800 be ratified and payment met from the Sinking Fund.

RESOLVED that Motion 3 be carried Yes 21 No 1 Abstain 1 Invalid 0

4 REPLACE DAMAGED GUTTERING ORDINARY RESOLUTION

That the damaged guttering on front of restaurant caused by cyclone Steve be replaced as per quote of $791.40. Cost to be met from Sinking Fund and the Body Corporate to be reimbursed by proceeds from insurance claim.

RESOLVED that Motion 4 be carried Yes 21 No 0 Abstain 2 Invalid 0”

It will be noted that the Body Corporate ratified the expenditure of $6,800. In my view, the work is covered by the sinking fund forecast. It comes within the category, “EXTERNAL FINISHES REPARE PATCH AND PAINT (MAJOR REFURBISHMENT)”. In my view, it doesn’t matter if the work was not done as part of a major refurbishment. There is no basis to make an order in respect of this matter.

2.

Insurance

The minutes of the meeting relevantly record the following about motion 7, regarding insurance:

“7. CONFIRMATION OF INSURANCE ORDINARY RESOLUTION

That the insurances set out below be confirmed and that Body Corporate Services Pty Ltd be authorised to obtain quotations and renew the insurances for the next twelve month period unless instructed to the contrary by the Committee.

.........

Total Premium: $14,164.00

.........

RESOLVED that Motion 7 be carried Yes 27 No 0 Abstain 1 Invalid 0”

It will be observed that there are two parts to motion 7. Firstly, the current insurance is confirmed and secondly authority is given to renew the insurance.

The premium paid, $14,164.00 is in excess of the relevant limits for Committee spending and major spending.

Consequently, the expenditure can only be approved by the Body Corporate in general meeting with owners being given at least two quotes.

There is nothing that can be done about the insurance already paid for the financial year up to 30 June 2001.

However, the Body Corporate will need to comply with sections 101 and 102 of the Regulation in respect of future insurance policies. The Body Corporate may be able to obtain from an insurer a commencement and end date for a policy that is a short period after the final date that its annual general meeting is to be held each year. If that occurred, the Body Corporate could approve the expenditure at its annual general meeting with the insurance policy being renewed a short time thereafter.

I will make an order that the Body Corporate can only approve the expenditure of funds for insurance where there has been compliance with the requirements of sections 101 and 102 of the Regulation. My order will only have effect if the expenditure is high enough so as to be covered by the requirements of those sections.

3.	Body Corporate Manager

The minutes of the meeting record the following about motion 8, appointment of body corporate manager:

“8 APPOINTMENT OF BODY CORPORATE MANAGER ORDINARY RESOLUTION

That under Section 85(1) of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 1997 the Body Corporate engages Body Corporate Services Pty Ltd for a term of three years commencing on 01 January 2001 for a fee of $7,930.00 being an initial rate of $130.00 per Lot plus GST per annum for the purpose of providing administrative services to the Body Corporate, the details of which are contained in the Agreement forwarded to owners.

RESOLVED that Motion 8 be carried Yes 27 No 1 Abstain 0 Invalid 0”

Motion 8 was the only motion considered by the Body Corporate in respect of the engagement of a body corporate manager.

The applicant argues that owners should have been provided with two quotes as the expenditure is over the limit for major spending. The expenditure is clearly in excess of the relevant limit for major spending. If the annual figure of $7,930 is used, the overall expenditure for three years is $23,790. However, I note that the Agreement also provides for the payment of other fees.

It is stated in the chairperson’s submission that a second quote was not obtained as Body Corporate Services had performed satisfactorily in the past. It is stated in the manager’s submission that, “The Committee were informed that an additional quote for body corporate management was required, however they opted not to obtain one.”

Owners should have been provided with at least two quotes/contracts and been given the opportunity to choose between them.

I will make an order invalidating the ordinary resolution that approved motion 8. I will also order that the Body Corporate must comply with sections 101 and 102 of the Regulation in respect of the engagement of a manager. I will also make two further orders that should resolve the matter. Firstly, I will order that Body Corporate Services can continue as the body corporate manager pursuant to the contract approved at the meeting for a period of three months. Secondly, I will order that a meeting be called at which the Committee must submit at least one motion for the engagement of a manager. If the expenditure involved is above the relevant limit for major spending then it will be necessary to comply with section 102 of the Regulation. I remind the Body Corporate of the requirements of section 85 of the Regulation.

4.

Telephone

The minutes of the meeting record the following about motion 11, revenue from telephone system:

“11 PAY OWNERS FROM REVENUE PRODUCED BY ORDINARY

TELEPHONE SYSTEM RESOLUTION

Proposed by: B & S McCarty Lot No: 34

At next contract renewal or change, require letting agent to pay owners the greater of $200 per month or half the gross revenue produced by the telephone system. This as compensation for body corporate property (telephone lines) in complex.

RESOLVED that Motion 11 be ruled out of order Yes 1 No 24 Abstain 3 Invalid 0”

I have clarified the meaning of the last line quoted above. The Chairperson ruled the motion out of order however the voting on the motion was counted. It will be observed that the motion was heavily defeated.

The applicant argues that section 118 of the Regulation gives a head of power for this motion. Section 118 is not relevant. That section allows the Body Corporate to provide services to owners and recover the cost of doing so.

Owners have strongly indicated that they are not in favour of the motion. There is no basis to interfere with the decision. I do not propose to make an order in respect of this matter.

5.	GST – Resident Manager

The Body Corporate approved an increase in the remuneration to the Resident Manager at its annual general meeting on 17 December 1999 due to the pending commencement of the GST legislation. Motion 8 relevantly provided:

“8 RESIDENT MANAGER’S REMUNERATION ORDINARY

TO BE COMPENSATED FOR GST RESOLUTION

Proposed by: D & J Bartell Lot No: 6

That with effect from July 1, 2000, the body corporate will increase the Resident Manager’s remuneration under the Caretaking Agreement by an amount of 10% of such remuneration then being paid, to compensate the Resident Manager for the Goods and Services Tax which comes into effect on that date.

RESOLVED that Motion 8 be carried Yes 17 No 5 Abstain 0 Invalid 1”

The applicant relevantly states the following about the matter:

“We were also told that we could “claim this amount back”. Subsequently a ruling by the ATO meant it wasn’t necessary for the GST to be collected by “holiday letting” properties and, as I read it, the 10% added to this contract was illegal.”

The following is stated in the chairperson’s submission about the matter:

“This I understand is normal procedure with the introduction of GST In effect the Resident Managers do not receive the additional 10% This is passed on to the ATO. The increase was authorised by the Members at the 1999 AGM. The meeting was informed that if the Owners were subject to GST on their rental income the 10% GST Proportion could be claimed back as an Input Taxed.

Subsequently, a ruling by the ATO made the rentals free of GST This is a separate issue to the 10% required to be paid by the Resident Managers on their remuneration.”

The following is relevantly stated in the resident manager’s submission:

“The subject of the GST loading into our monthly remuneration is out of control. We were advised by accountants that we would be required to pay GST on this monthly payment. I am not an accountant, and if this is incorrect, by all means change it. The Government is getting this 10% increase – not us. ... Rentals on holiday let properties in strata title situations do not attract GST as the ATO has classified them as “residential”. This has nothing to do with our Body Corporate payment.

We cannot load GST on to our tariff. The apartments are input taxed. That’s it! GST still has to be applied to all other aspects of letting these properties, goods and services supplied etc. The vote was tabled and voted on in accordance with the Act in a properly convened meeting and was passed.”

It is indicated in the chairperson’s submission and the resident manager’s submission that the resident manager is required to pay the 10% GST however GST is not due on rental received by owners for holiday let properties in community title schemes.

The applicant states in his reply, “The ATO rulings on Resident Manager fees do not allow the increase of 10% by the resident managers.”

The applicant essentially argues that the increase paid to the Resident Manager is not in conformity with the GST legislation. That is not a matter in respect of which I have jurisdiction. My jurisdiction relates to the various provisions in the Act, Regulation and community management statement (including the scheme’s by-laws): sections 183 and 223 of the Act. I could, for example, determine whether correct procedures have been followed in the convening of a meeting at which a resident manager’s remuneration is increased. However, the validity of the meeting has not been challenged in this application. I do not propose to make an order in respect of this matter.

6.	Sinking Fund

As has been discussed above, there have been two items of expenditure from the sinking fund that are not part of the sinking fund forecast. They are the consultant fees for the air-conditioning report and the landscaping (and associated work).

The applicant submits that there is not enough money in the sinking fund to cover the cost of future work.

The chairperson’s submission relevantly states the following about the matter:

“It is felt that with the current annual levy for the sinking fund of $34389 Gross with no major expenses envisaged for the next 2 to 3 years sufficient funds will be available for the next major expenditure which is Painting of the building.”

It should be noted that the current budgeted amount for the sinking fund, $34,389, is significantly greater than the amount stated in the sinking fund forecast for the years 2000 and 2001, ie $27,477.

The applicant states that at the meeting the resident manager indicated that there were several maintenance items that he knows will need to be done soon. There are no details before me about these items. Consequently, I do not intend to take those items into account.

In my view, it is acceptable for the Body Corporate to slowly increase the sinking fund year by year after the significant air-conditioning and landscaping expenditures that were not in the sinking fund forecast. I would not order that the deficiency be made up in one year as requested by the applicant. That would be unreasonable. I decline to make an order in respect of the matter.

7.	Other issues

The applicant has argued that the body corporate manager, Body Corporate Services, should be investigated in respect of the issues raised by the application.

It is not necessary for me to investigate Body Corporate Services to resolve this dispute.

If the applicant wants action to be taken against the body corporate manager he will have to seek Body Corporate support. It is the Body Corporate that is a party to the contract of engagement with a manager.

As I have assessed the application above, I have indicated the orders I propose to make. I want to comment on a number of orders sought by the applicant. He sought an order to “punish body corporate and Body Corporate Services for spending trust funds in excess of their authority.” I cannot make such an order. Adjudicators do not make orders that punish persons. The applicant has sought an order that a new sinking fund analysis be prepared with reference to “existing building deterioration conditions”. Adjudicators do not make such orders. The Body Corporate must decide whether to pay for a sinking fund analysis or determine the contributions that are necessary by itself. The applicant has sought an order for penalties to be imposed for contraventions of the Act. He suggests the “disqualification of 1999-2000 officers and ordering of new election”. I do not have power to impose penalties. In respect of the Committee, a Body Corporate can freely choose who will be elected and remain on the Committee. That is not a decision for my determination.

The applicant has forwarded a letter dated 12 March 2001 in which he complains about the trimming of trees in front of his lot. The matter has been addressed in a letter from the resident manager dated 15 March 2001. I do not intend to adjudicate on the matter as it was not raised in the original application. I will arrange for a copy of the resident manager’s letter to be forwarded to the applicant.


Orders

I will make an order that Mr Denis Broad of Body Corporate Services call a meeting of the Body Corporate in the next three months. I will order that the Committee must submit motions to the meeting regarding ratification of the expenditure on consultant’s fees and landscaping if it is above the limit for committee spending and at least one motion for the engagement of a body corporate manager. I will order that the resolution to engage Body Corporate Services at the meeting is invalid. I have made provision in my orders for the Body Corporate to consider any other valid motions at the general meeting.

I will make a further order that the Body Corporate must comply with sections 101 and 102 of the Regulation in respect of expenditure on an insurance and on a body corporate manager.