The Meadows [2001] QBCCMCmr 579 (16 November 2001)

REFERENCE: 0669-2001

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	20691
Name of Scheme:	The Meadows
Address of Scheme:	154 Currumbin Creek Road CURRUMBIN QLD 4223

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

a number of owners of lots in The Meadows scheme identifying themselves in the Application as the ‘Body Corporate for “The Meadows” CTS 20691’,

I hereby order that the application for an order declaring invalid the meeting called by Gold Coast Body Corporate Specialists for 17 November 2001 and an order requiring the return of all books and records belonging to the Meadows body corporate be both dismissed.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0669-2001

“The Meadows” CTS 20691

The applicants have sought the following order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act), quote -

1. That the meeting called by Gold Coast Body Corporate Specialists for the 17^th November be invalidated.

2. That all the books and records belonging to the “Meadows Body Corporate” be returned within 14 days to the committee or failing which that a representative from the committee be authorised to collect the books and records from Gold Coast Body Corporate Specialists.

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 applicants states that:

(a)	That both the Secretary and the Body Corporate Manager had been terminated on the 13th October 2001, and as such cannot call the meeting. These managers have ignored this and have called another meeting to be held on the 17th November.

(b)	That the motions as shown on the voting papers have already been voted upon at the last EGM. The motions shown as submitted for the forthcoming EGM have in fact not been submitted by Mrs Castles, the committee or the owners.

(c)

That the ex body corporate managers took it upon themselves to call the meeting (after they had been terminated) and submit motions that had already been voted upon on the 13th October 2001 by a requisitioned meeting called by 27 financial owners. (6 statutory declarations of proof of some of the payments are available upon request.

(d)

That the ex body corporate managers quote sections 42(3)© of the Standard Module as applying to them calling the general meeting. Sections 42 and 43 applies to rules applicable to notice and time of a general meeting; however, section 61 is the correct Section applying to the calling of the meeting.

This is one of two related applications now before me which have been submitted by owners of lots in “The Meadows”; the other being Application 0619-2001, lodged by Denise Wright and Ellen Strahan of lots 12 and 22 respectively. Both question the validity of certain meetings and decisions of the body corporate. As the two applications overlap, certain comments I have made in my reasons to one order may not be repeated in detail in the other. Therefore, my reasons for both orders should be read together.

The orders sought in the Application are premised, fundamentally, on the presumption that the requested extraordinary general meeting held on 13 October 2001 was valid. In the reasons for my order provided in relation to Application 0619-2001, I detail a number of statutory requirements imposed by the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 1997 that I am not satisfied were met in the process leading up to the 13 October 2001 meeting. Accordingly, in relation to Application 0619-2001, I declared the 13 October 2001 meeting to be void. This being the case, there is no basis for making the orders sought in the present Application.