Society House [2001] QBCCMCmr 539 (19 October 2001)

P J HANLYREFERENCE: 0617-2001

INTERIM ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	14784
Name of Scheme:	Society House
Address of Scheme:	119 Scarborough Street SOUTHPORT QLD 4215

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

Frank Neville Partington as trustee, the owner of lot 6A.


I hereby order that the application for an interim order to:

(a)	Cancel the agreement between the body corporate and Quinn & Box Solicitors
(b)	Cancel the insurance covering committee liability
(c)	Direct the owner (Mr W.C. Wall) of the illuminated sign affixed to the ceiling of the alcove directly in front of the upstairs entrance to have it removed and not erected elsewhere without body corporate approval by special resolution,

is dismissed.



STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0617-2001

“Society House” CMS 14784

The applicant, Frank Neville Partington as trustee, the owner of lot 6A, has sought the following order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act), quote -
The interim orders that I am seeking are to:-

(a)	Cancel the agreement between the body corporate and Quinn & Box Solicitors
(b)	Cancel the insurance covering committee liability
(c)	Direct the owner (Mr W.C. Wall) of the illuminated sign affixed to the ceiling of the alcove directly in front of the upstairs entrance to have it removed and not erected elsewhere without body corporate approval by special resolution.

Section 225(1) of the Act 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)).

In any consideration of an application which seeks the making of an interim order, it is necessary to determine at the outset whether, because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances relating to the application, an interim order is in fact necessary or appropriate. The examples included in the Act under section 225(1) are suggestive of the usual circumstances where an interim order might be made. Both examples are in the nature of injunctive relief. Whilst the range of matters which might be the subject of an interim order is not capable of definition, the applicant does need to establish that the circumstances of the application warrant the making of an interim order.

An interim order will not be made, or will be refused, in circumstances where the only urgency relates to the applicant’s desire to resolve or expedite the matters in dispute, or where the nature of the circumstances are such that the matter is not capable of being dealt with in the context of an interim order. Again, it is not possible to define these circumstances. However, given that an interim order may be made ex parte (ie. without reference to, or submission from the respondent named in the matter), then as a guide, where the circumstances or matters in dispute include matters or allegations not capable of objective consideration, or ready determination, or relate to issues of credibility or character, for example, where an interim order would be inappropriate, then the request for an interim order will be refused. It is a matter for an adjudicator to determine in respect of each application.

Although the applicant states that he wishes to have this matter determined prior to the resumption on 25 October 2001 of the hearing in the Magistrates Court, I consider that there is no aspect of urgency associated with this application that requires that an interim order be made. The issues before the Magistrates Court should be dealt with in that Court, and the issues raised in this application can properly be dealt with after submissions have been received from relevant parties. Moreover, the matters raised are not such that they can be effectively addressed or dealt with by way of an interim order. Rather, they require full investigation before any order can be made. Accordingly, this application for an interim order is refused.

This matter will now be investigated in accordance with the usual processes undertaken by this office. A final order regarding the application will be made in due course.2n