Raintree Glen [2002] QBCCMCmr 61 (5 February 2002)

RA MeekREFERENCE: 0534-2001

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	19967
Name of Scheme:	Raintree Glen
Address of Scheme:	27 Raintree Glen RUNAWAY BAY QLD 4216

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to an application made under the abovementioned Act by the Body Corporate for Raintree Glen

RA MeekI hereby order that the application by the Body Corporate for Raintree Glen, for an order that the resident of villa 41 be ordered to comply with the body corporate by-laws and no longer utilise the visitors parking facilities, is dismissed.
n
STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0534-2001

“Raintree Glen” CTS 19967

The applicant, the Body Corporate for Raintree Glen, has sought the following order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act), quote -

That the resident of villa 41 be ordered to comply with the body corporate by-laws and no longer utilise the visitors parking facilities.

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)).

Whilst the order refers to “the resident”, both the grounds and the application refer to “Josephine Casalmer”. I intend to proceed on the basis that the respondent in this matter is Ms Casalmer and not the occupiers of lot 41 collectively.

In the supporting grounds, the applicant states that –

Josephine Casalmer is using visitor parking facilities for parking her vehicles on a regular basis.

This allegation is denied by Ms Casalmer, who has responded to the application by way of submission. She states –

I am the owner of unit 41/27 ... and I have never parked in visitors parking in the 4 years of Living at this address.

The misunderstanding is that a Mr Laurence Hyde, who lives in this unit, may well be parking in a visitors space, as he works various hours and does not wish to disturb the neighbours when he leaves the unit, as the garage doors are quite noisy at 3 am in the morning. ...

Mr Hyde has also responded stating that –

In regard to the parking in the visitors car park – this is not a problem for anyone – as I no longer have a car nor a job.

PS. It has always been stated that Josephine Casalmer has been parking in the space. This is not so and she is very upset for being accused of doing so.

I intend to dismiss the application, for three reasons. There is no specific or clear evidence offered of the allegation made. Further, the allegation is specifically denied by Ms Casalmer, and this denial is substantiated by Mr Hyde. Finally, it is stated that in any event, the parking in question has ceased.






n