Island Court [2001] QBCCMCmr 634 (19 December 2001)

RA MeekREFERENCE: 0717-2001

INTERIM ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	19957
Name of Scheme:	Island Court
Address of Scheme:	43 Island Street CLEVELAND QLD 4163

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to an application made under the abovementioned Act by Antun Rozumberski, the owner of lot 3

RA MeekI hereby order that the application by Antun Rozumberski, the owner of lot 3 for an interim order to keep the order and not to permit visitors to abuse permanent residents if they are confronted with request not to park their vehicle on common ground, is dismissed. n

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0717-2001

“Island Court” CMS 19957

The applicant, Antun Rozumberski, the owner of lot 3 has sought the following interim order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act), quote -

To keep the order and not to permit visitors to abuse permanent residents if they are confronted with request not to park their vehicle on common ground.

The terms of the final order sought by the applicant are not specified. Rather there is a series of statements.

The order appears to be sought against the owner or occupier of lot 4. Gisela Hobelt has made a submission in response to the application.

Section 225(1) 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.

There is no aspect of urgency associated with this application that requires that an interim order be made. Moreover, the nature of 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, including submissions from other parties to the dispute, before any order can be made. Accordingly, this application for an interim order is refused.

Given the nature of the issues raised by this application, I propose to arrange a mediation of the dispute in the early new year. To this end, this office will be in further contact.