Argon Place [2001] QBCCMCmr 459 (17 August 2001)

RA MeekREFERENCE: 0207-2001

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	6878
Name of Scheme:	Argon Place
Address of Scheme:	26 Argon Street SUMNER PARK QLD 4074

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to an application made under the abovementioned Act by the Body Corporate for Argon Place

RA MeekI hereby order that the application by the Body Corporate for Argon Place, for an order to terminate AD Body Corporate as Managers of Argon Place BUP, and to have all records returned to Argon Place including monies in our trust account, is dismissed.



STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0207-2001

“Argon Place” CTS 6878

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

We the owners of Argon Place wish to terminate AD Body Corporate as Managers of Argon Place BUP. We the owners wish all records to be returned to Argon Place including monies in our trust account.

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)).

In the supporting grounds, the applicant states that –

After a body corporate meeting held on 25 January 2001, the owners decided that we would manage our own affairs. This was brought about by the fact that the person nominated to manage our affairs by the AD Body Corporate was none other than the manager who handled our affairs from Accountable Property Management. If we had known this at the time of the election, we would not have voted for AD Body Corporate. Neither would we have voted for Body Corporate Services as we ceased their management of our body corporate affairs years ago. We feel that we were not fully informed of our rights in this matter and seek to redress our grievances by having AD Body Corporate Services removed as our body corporate manager and return all our monies and past and present records immediately.

There has been a submission in response made by both the manager appointed, AD Body Corporate Managers and Consultants, and Calabro Partners, the receiver for the original manager.

The resolution which the body corporate carried at the meeting held on 28 December 2000 was that –

To appoint AD Body Corporate Pty Ltd to provide administrative services to the body corporate for a period of one year ...

The manager has stated in its submission that –

We have 6 managers available at AD Body Corporate who could handle this body corporate ... if the committee would request a change of manager.

An adjudicator does not exercise a jurisdiction to terminate contracts entered into between bodies corporate and managers. Whilst an adjudicator might invalidate a motion purporting to appoint a manager, this is entirely different from terminating a contract. The applicant body corporate has provided no basis for invalidating the motion in question.

In the circumstances, I decline to make the order as sought. I suggest to the body corporate that the manager was appointed for a term of one year. It seems that this period will expire in the not to distant future. I suggest to the body corporate that it will shortly have the opportunity to re-consider the suitability of the appointed manager. I consider that members of the body corporate should carefully consider the termination provisions in the current agreement, and should they wish to terminate the manager’s services, comply with those provisions. Moreover, the body corporate should consider the inclusion of motions on the agenda of the AGM for the appointment of a further manager, or failing this, the body corporate might consider the option of self management.





n