Sovereign Gardens Villas South [2001] QBCCMCmr 369 (9 July 2001)

P J HanlyREFERENCE: 0216-2001

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	16433
Name of Scheme:	Sovereign Gardens Villas South
Address of Scheme:	53 Old Coach Road MUDGEERABA QLD 4213

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

the Body Corporate for Sovereign Gardens Villas South CTS 16433


P J HanlyI hereby order that the application by the body corporate for an order that the owner of Lot 34, Mrs Joyce Lillian Goodwin, be required to remove the “For Sale” sign on display on her lot, is dismissed.2n
STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0216-2001

“Sovereign Gardens Villas South ” CTS 16433

The applicant Body Corporate for Sovereign Garden Villas South, has sought the following order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act), quote -

That Mrs Goodwin be required to remove the “For Sale” sign on display on her lot.

Section 223(1) of the Act 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)).

In the supporting grounds, the applicant states that the respondent, Mrs Joyce Lillian Goodwin has ignored verbal and written requests to remove the “For Sale” sign on display on her lot, including the issue of a Notice of Continuing Contravention of a Body Corporate By-law. It is further stated that Mrs Goodwin has advised that she would not remove the sign.

Submissions in response to the application were sought from Mrs Goodwin. Submissions were received from numerous owners, as well as from Mrs Goodwin. I consider much of the material submitted in these submissions to be irrelevant to this dispute. I have confined my deliberations to the subject matter of the application, which is the display of “For Sale” signs in Lot 34 and have considered the submissions made only in so far as they relate to this issue.

Firstly, it appears from the joint submission received from the owners of Villas 126, 139, 130, 146 101, 103, 111, 140, 137, 102, 120, 110, 105 and 129 that Mrs Goodwin is in fact displaying two “For Sale” signs in her villa, rather than one, as the applicant suggests. The submission also provides some details regarding the dimensions and locations of the signs. One sign is stated to be approximately 50cm x 40cm and the other, approximately 60cm x 80cm. One is displayed in a side window that faces directly down Sovereign Parade, which is a through road. The submission states that this location is not easily seen until almost reaching the junction of Sovereign Parade and Anne Court due to shrubbery on the kerb-side. The other is displayed in the front window of the villa facing Anne Court, which is a cul-de-sac that only attracts four permanent residents who do not own cars. Again, shrubbery on the kerb-side is stated to prevent the reading of the sign other than from directly in front of it.



The applicant alleges that Mrs Goodwin has contravened by-law 8. By-law 8, as registered in the Community Management Statement for Sovereign Gardens Villas South, lodged on 29 November 1999, provides as follows:

Appearance of Building

8. An owner or occupier of a lot shall not, except with the consent in writing of the Body Corporate, hang any washing, towel, bedding, clothing or other article or display any sign, advertisement, placard, banner, pamphlet or like matter on any part of his lot in such a way as to be visible from the common property.

Where an owner wishes to place a sign on their lot, for example in their window, that is to be visible from the common property then by-law 8 operates to require that the owner must first obtain the written consent of the committee.

It is not clear from the material submitted when Mrs Goodwin erected the “For Sale” signs in question, but Mrs Goodwin does state that she made a written “application” to display a “For Sale” sign on May 12, 2001. Minutes of a committee held on 15 May 2001 relevantly provide that it was “Resolved that Mrs Goodwin’s request to erect a “For Sale” sign at the front gate be rejected. However, as has been the case with other owners wishing to sell, a sign will be allowed on a specified viewing day. All in favour.”

The material submitted by the applicant indicates that Mrs Goodwin had previously been requested in writing to remove the sign displayed in her villa, firstly by letter dated 22 February 2001 and secondly by issue of a By-Law Contravention Notice on 10 March 2001.

It is clear that Mrs Goodwin has contravened by-law 8. She concedes she is displaying, without the written consent of the committee, two “For Sale” signs within her lot that are visible from the common property.

The only issue that remains to be considered in determining this application is whether the committee’s decision to refuse Mrs Goodwin’s request to display a “For Sale” sign, was unreasonable.

In this regard, it is relevant to note that the committee are refusing permission to erect “For Sale” signs both within Lot 34 and at the front gate (which is presumably on common property), other than on a “specified viewing day”. I consider the committee’s refusal to allow Mrs Goodwin to display a “For Sale” sign other than on a “specified viewing day” to be unreasonable for the following reasons. None of the material before me has suggested that the body corporate has allowed any alternative location for the display of “For Sale” signs. I wonder where an owner wishing to sell their lot might be able to display a “For Sale” sign, other than on a “specified viewing day” in a location approved by the committee. It is standard and accepted practice for owners who have listed their properties for sale to display “For Sale” signs on those properties regardless of whether or not the property is to be open for inspection or “viewing” on any particular day. None of the submissions received in response to this application indicate that there have been any complaints concerning the signs in question, other than from the committee. On the contrary, owners of 14 lots have written in opposing the application and stating that to their knowledge, “there has been no adverse comment relative to the signs – rather the reverse”.

Mrs Goodwin’s lot is situated at the end of a group of six villas, on the corner of Sovereign Parade and Anne Court. I consider it reasonable for her to display two “For Sale” signs of the current dimensions (that is approximately 50cm x 40cm and approximately 60cm x 80cm), one in a front window and one in a side window such that one sign is visible from each roadway, in order for her to advertise that her property is on the market.

I therefore propose to dismiss this application.2n