La Sagra [2002] QBCCMCmr 190 (11 April 2002)

DP GardinerREFERENCE: 0718-2001

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	8851
Name of Scheme:	La Sagra
Address of Scheme:	13 Eunice Court TOOWOOMBA QLD 4350

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

Mrs Dulcie Wildblood, the Owner of lot 2



I hereby order that the application for an order requiring the respondent to pay to the applicant the sum of $ 142.93 being half of the insurance premium for home units insurance for the scheme is granted and I further order that the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $ 142.93.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0718-2001

“La Sagra” CTS 8851

The applicant Mrs Dulcie Wildblood, the Owner of lot 2, has sought the following order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act), quote -

“that the owner of lot 1, 13 Eunice Court, Toowoomba, Mrs. Lygia Service, contribute the amount of $ 151.04 representing half of the A M P General Insurance Premium for home units insurance on the La Sagra Body Corporate B U P no. 6373.”

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 the respondent cancelled her “half’ of the building insurance on the unit by phoning the insurance broker for the body corporate without any reference to the applicant and that the respondent refuses to discuss the issue with the applicant.

On the 29^th November 2001, the applicant paid the insurance premium in full ($285.85) and seeks reimbursement of half the amount paid, namely $142.93.

Subsequently, the respondent entered into a policy to insure her “half “ of the building and for public liability insurance with Directdial Insurance.

This is a dispute between the owners of the two lots that comprise the scheme. It is very obvious from the information received that there has been significant disagreement over a long period of time which is most unfortunate given the close proximity within which the parties to this dispute live.

This current dispute arises because of the decision of the respondent to refuse to pay half of the insurance premium for the building. As a result, the applicant was left with no alternative other than to pay the entire premium. The respondent must therefore pay to the applicant the sum of $ 142.93.

It is acknowledged that this decision will cause the respondent some financial loss in light of the fact that the respondent has taken out her own insurance policy as cancellation of this policy will result in a partial refund of the premium paid. However, this is a direct result of the respondent’s own actions and one for which she alone is responsible.




Nonetheless, it is hoped that for the future common sense will prevail and that there will at least be effective communication , whether written or verbal, that will avoid any repetition of these types of events occurring.



2n