Pinnacle [2001] QBCCMCmr 24 (17 January 2001)

RA MeekREFERENCE: 0565-2000

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	18681
Name of Scheme:	Pinnacle
Address of Scheme:	MS 415 Battle Creek MT GARNET QLD 4872

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

Ronald James Miller, the co-owner of lot 16



RA MeekI hereby order that the application by Ronald James Miller, the co-owner of lot 16, for an order of an adjudicator to stop the body corporate from supplying poisonous water from the bore to proprietors until all legal avenues are covered, is dismissed.

n
STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0565-2000

“Pinnacle” CTS 18681

The applicant, Ronald James Miller, the co-owner of lot 16, has sought the following order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act), quote -

I am seeking an order to stop the body corporate from supplying poisonous water from bore to proprietors until all legal avenues are covered ...

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)).

This application appears to be a pre-emptive strike which seeks to invalidate a motion which was to be considered at the AGM of the body corporate. That motion, proposed by I Oakley and stated to require a special resolution, was as follows –

The body corporate connect the bore to the mains by contracting Kevin McDonald to supply main power and the electrical connections and McCrackens Water Services (Mareeba) Pty Ltd to supply and fit a three phase submersible pump to the bore as recommended in quote. The total cost is to be paid from the sinking fund with no increase in levies and cost per kl of water. Quotes, explanation and Diagram attached. Total cost $5950.

The minutes of the AGM held on 5 November 2000 indicated that the chairman commented that there was “insufficient detail and accuracy in pricing of motion”. Further, the minutes indicate that the motion was “withdrawn by proposer: I Oakley”.

It is the water from the bore that the applicant alleges contains dangerously high levels of fluoride. The applicant’s contention is that if the town reticulation system is connected to the water supply from the bore, then the consequences might include future legal liability for the body corporate.

Given that the motion was withdrawn, then I consider that there is not a dispute which might be the subject of an application. In my view, before there can be a dispute regarding the validity of a motion proposing a change to the town water supply, there must first be a valid resolution to this effect. No such resolution exists. In the circumstances, I intend to dismiss this application as being without substance.

n