Lisson Court [2002] QBCCMCmr 75 (13 February 2002)

P J HANLYREFERENCE: 0491-2001

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	14082
Name of Scheme:	Lisson Court
Address of Scheme:	1 Weenah Street BRACKEN RIDGE QLD 4017

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

James Frederick Rawlings, the owner of lot 2



I hereby order that the owner of lot 2, James Frederick Rawlings, shall be responsible for payment of the cost of plumbing work carried out by Ritchie Bros Pty Ltd to the pipe work solely servicing lot 2 in the sum of $3,586.00.


STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0491-2001

“Lisson Court” CTS 14082

The applicant, James Frederick Rawlings, 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 -

We have got a dispute with a plumbing bill. I want body corporate to pay their share. It cost $3586.00 and my share is $1395.79. This is the amount I feel I should have to pay.

Section 223(1) of the Act 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 in late December 2000 water began leaking from his lot and lot 3. The applicant further states that a plumber was called and identified the source of the leak as taps leading into the hot water system located in the applicant’s lot. The applicant further states that he does not believe that he should pay the whole of the plumbing cost, as the hot water system services all other lots, but just happens to be located in his garage.

The body corporate committee was invited to respond to the application. The treasurer of the body corporate stated in her submission that the scheme has a common hot water system to which each lot’s pipes are connected via individual isolating valves. The treasurer further stated that the body corporate considers the plumbing work carried out on the applicant’s lot should be paid solely by the applicant, as the work carried out was to replace and re-pipe the water supply to the applicant’s lot from the isolating valve located in the applicant’s garage. The treasurer noted that the plumber’s invoice/job card refers frequently to the pipes supplying lot 2 and the work done within lot 2. The treasurer observed that the work referred to in the letter dated 1 March 2001 from the plumber to the applicant refers to only a portion of the total work carried out.


On 12 February 2002, I spoke by telephone with Dale, the plumber who carried out the work in the applicant’s lot. Dale advised me that the source of the leak was in lot 2, and that after investigation, it was determined that there was no leak in lot 3, but rather that water was leaking into lot 3 from lot 2. Dale further advised me that the pipe work which was replaced was all related to lot 2, even though some of the pipe work went through boundary floors and walls. Dale stated that the cold water pipe which he replaced came off the main water service, and supplied cold water solely to lot 2. Dale further stated that the hot water pipe which he replaced came off the community hot water system but supplied hot water solely to lot 2. Finally, Dale confirmed that although the pipe work travelled from the garage of lot 2 into the garage of lot 5 and then up into lot 2, there was never any leak located in the garage of lot 5.

I have perused a copy of the plumber’s job card, provided by the body corporate from its records, which confirms the information given to me by Dale. In addition, I have perused the letter dated 1 March 2001 from Ritchie Bros Pty Ltd to the applicant, which provides a break down of charges relating to material and labour for new tap ware and work carried out in the bathroom, shower, laundry and kitchen of the applicant’s lot. This letter forms the basis of the applicant’s argument that he should only be responsible for the cost of the work detailed in the letter, and that the body corporate should be responsible for the remainder of the cost. This argument fails to recognise the fact that the leak emanated in the applicant’s lot, and that there was therefore no evidence of any failure on the part of the body corporate to discharge its obligation to properly maintain common property. The pipe work in question does not fall within the extended definition of common property relating to utility infrastructure (section 21 of the Act).

I am therefore satisfied that the total cost of the plumbing work carried out in relation to the pipe work solely servicing lot 2 should be borne by the owner of lot 2, the applicant in this matter. I have ordered accordingly.

2n