Talbot Manor [2001] QBCCMCmr 207 (6 April 2001)

RA MeekREFERENCE: 0212-2001

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	8610
Name of Scheme:	Talbot Manor
Address of Scheme:	18-22 Albert Street EAGLEBY QLD 4207

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to an application made under the abovementioned Act by Skehan Body Corporate Managers, the appointed administrator for the scheme


RA MeekI hereby order that the application for an order of an adjudicator authorising the administrator appointed for the scheme, Skehan Body Corporate Managers, to expend funds on behalf of the committee prior to the general meeting to be convened, is approved in part.

I further order that the administrator appointed for the scheme, Skehan Body Corporate Managers, is authorised to attend to payment of the following accounts, in the amounts specified, on behalf of the body corporate :-

• ANSA Plumbing $393.61

• Energex $ 48.75

• J Jones $179.25

• Garry Greaves $693.00

• Swannies Tree Lopping $220.00

I further order that the administrator appointed for the scheme, Skehan Body Corporate Managers, is authorised to attend to the payment of any further invoice received prior to the meeting being held which is for the provision of a service to the scheme, and which relates to the maintenance or operation of the scheme and the obligations of the body corporate in relation to the scheme, up to a limit of $400 in respect of each such invoice. $2200 n
STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0212-2001

“Talbot Manor” CTS 8610

The applicant, Skehan Body Corporate Managers, the appointed administrator for the scheme, has sought an order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act) that the administrator of the body corporate be authorised to pay certain invoices received “for work done at the body corporate’s request prior to the date of the order 0046-2001” and which have not been paid. Specifically, the order is sought to authorise the administrator to pay six invoices totalling approximately $2200, “to ensure that life continues in a normal manner”. The appliant concludes that –

The general meeting must be held within three months of the date of the order. Any accounts that relate to regular items of expenditure should be paid. Eg. lawn mowing, electricity, and insurance.

Section 103(1) of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) (the module) provides in part as follows -

The committee may only carry out a proposal involving spending above the relevant limit for committee spending for the scheme if ... an adjudicator is satisfied that the spending is required to meet an emergency and authorises it under an order made under the dispute resolution provisions.

The module defines the “relevant limit for committee spending” as an amount worked out by multiplying the number of lots included in the scheme by $100. Given that there are 16 lots in this scheme, then the relevant limit for committee spending is $1,600.00. The applicant seeks authorisation to expend up to a maximum of $2200. The applicant is in essence functioning as the committee prior to the meeting being held, and as the administrator states “no person is presently authorised to pay the accounts to the best of our knowledge”.

I have authorised payment of five of the six invoices, as I am satisfied that these relate to services provided to the body corporate. However I have not authorised payment to AJ & LA Harlen.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the five approved expenses, excepting that to Harlen, are legitimate expenses of the body corporate and should be paid, in accordance with section 103(1)(c) of the module, that the spending sought to be authorised is required to meet an emergency. I am not intending to suggest that the Harlen expense is not legitimate. However it is not an expense incurred for a service provided to the body corporate. It was the Harlen’s choice to bring the application which they did, and this office has no power to order the reimbursement of costs incurred in the making of an application. I recommend to the Harlen’s that they submit a motion for inclusion on the agenda of the general meeting seeking reimbursement of their expenses. $2200 n