Inveroona Villas [2001] QBCCMCmr 48 (2 February 2001)

P G DanielsREFERENCE: 0030-2001

INTERIM ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	24623
Name of Scheme:	Inveroona Villas
Address of Scheme:	24 Norfolk Avenue SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217

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

Gregory Michael Carroll a co-owner of lot 2



P G DanielsI hereby order that the application for the following interim order:

That all decisions and/or commitments relating to common property and dealings with Ms Vincents relatives be suspended until this application is finalised and any party to which commitments have been made, be informed of the fact. That the Body Corporate files be held by Julie Carroll so as we know of all activities relating to the Body Corporate.

is dismissed.1n

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0030-2001

“Inveroona Villas” CMS 24623

The applicant, Gregory Michael Carroll, a co-owner of lot 2, has sought the following orders of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act):

1.	Ms Vincent is not to make decisions and/or commitments regarding Body Corporate common property without our written agreement
2.	To reverse/withdraw any decisions/commitments which might have been made without our written agreement
3.	To disqualify Ms Vincent from dealing with her son & daughter-in-law or their agents on behalf of the Body Corporate as a conflict on interest in her duties of office.

The applicant has also sought the following interim order of an adjudicator:

That all decisions and/or commitments relating to common property and dealings with Ms Vincents relatives be suspended until this application is finalised and any party to which commitments have been made, be informed of the fact. That the Body Corporate files be held by Julie Carroll so as we know of all activities relating to the Body Corporate.

Section 197(4) provides that an adjudicator may make an interim order if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates. An adjudicator’s order may contain ancillary or consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate (section 230(1)).

The applicant states in his grounds that a tree and part of a boundary fence were removed from scheme land. The applicant states, “When questioned by police Ms Vincent claimed it was common property and that she had given her son permission as Chairman of Body Corporate.”

The applicant also raises other issues in his grounds but does not allege that Ms Vincent has made Body Corporate commitments in respect of those matters.

Ms Vincent has made a submission in respect of the matter. Ms Vincent attaches a letter from Kim Elliott to the Body Corporate dated 19 December 2000 that states:

“I am the contracted purchaser of 26 Norfolk Avenue which adjoins Inveroona Villas to the west.

Enclosed is a copy of a survey plan and registered report of 26 Norfolk Avenue which identifies (2) encroachments requiring immediate rectification.

One of these is the small front wall (referred to as Diagram B), the second is where the fence deviates around a mass of vegetation on the boundary.

Please remove these encroachments within seven (7) days else we will remove the encroaching fencing and vegetation by whatever means is necessary.”

Ms Vincent relevantly states in her submission:

“There have been no occasions where any decisions or commitments have needed to be been made in this regard [common property] since the last AGM. Neither I or the Body Corporate have entered into any agreements or made decisions concerning any matter.

.........

A copy of this notice [referred to above] and the survey report was personally delivered to the Carrolls by me on 19 December 2000.

.........

The applicant also alleges my son cut down the tree and claims I told the police I had extended my permission to him for such purpose. This is not correct. I did not give permission to anyone to do any such thing in either my personal or body corporate committee capacity nor told the police this. I did confirm appropriate notice was received from Ms Elliott. Contractors were engaged by her to perform this and other tasks at her property.”

I want to make it clear that I am not determining the substance and merits of the application at this stage. I am considering whether an interim order should be made to maintain the status quo. I have decided not to make the interim order in respect of decisions about the common property due to the submission of Ms Vincent as quoted above. I will consider the issue relating to the custody of the Body Corporate records and also the substance and merits of this application when a final order is made.

This matter will now be investigated in accordance with the usual processes undertaken by this office. Further material has been provided in respect of the application by Julie Carroll, a co-owner of lot 2. Ms Vincent will be invited to make a submission in respect of the final orders sought and the further material of Mrs Carroll. A final order regarding the application will be made in due course.