La Porte D'Or [2002] QBCCMCmr 84 (15 February 2002)

DJ ReardonREFERENCE: 0481-2001

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	12681
Name of Scheme:	La Porte D'Or
Address of Scheme:	3422 Gold Coast Highway, Surfers Paradise

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

Donjen Pty Ltd, the Owner of Lot 141

DJ ReardonI hereby order that the application for “An Order declaring that the resolution of the Committee for the Body Corporate purportedly passed at the Meeting held on 9 June 2001 which resumed on 22 June 2001 calling for an Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) is void” is dismissed.

I further order that the application for “An Order declaring that the calling of the EGM and all motions contained in the Notice of EGM are irregular, invalid and void” is dismissed.

I further order that the application for “An Order cancelling the EGM” is dismissed.

I further order that the application for an order that “In the event that all or any of Orders A, B and C are made, then a further Order that the Committee of the Body Corporate distribute to all Lot Owners a copy of the Application, the Adjudicator’s Orders and Adjudicators Reasons for Decision” is dismissed.

I further order that the resolutions made by the body corporate at the extraordinary general meeting of 18 August 2001 in respect of motion 3 (recovery of District Court fees) and motion2n 8 (action to recover money for the cost of the surveillance camera system), are invalid and of no effect.
STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0481-2001

“La Porte D'Or” CTS 12681

1.	Order Sought

The applicant, the Owner of Lot 141 has sought the following orders under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (“the Act”), quote-

“A. An Order declaring that the resolution of the Committee for the Body Corporate purportedly passed at the Meeting held on 9 June 2001 which resumed on 22 June 2001 calling for an Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) is void.

B. An Order declaring that the calling of the EGM and all motions contained in the Notice of EGM are irregular, invalid and void.

C. An order cancelling the EGM.

D. In the event that all or any of Orders A, B and C are made, then a further Order that the Committee of the Body Corporate distribute to all Lot Owners a copy of the Application, the Adjudicators Orders and Adjudicators Reasons for Decision.”

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)).

This application concerns a committee meeting held on 9 June 2001 and resumed on 22 June 2001, and an extraordinary general meeting of the body corporate held on 18 August 2001. The orders sought by the applicant concern the committee meeting, the calling of the general meeting and the motions proposed for consideration at the general meeting.

2.	Interim Order

The applicant sought the above orders as both final and interim orders. In a letter dated 9 August 2001, the applicant sought an additional interim order, (further or in the alternative to those outlined above) in the following terms, quote-

“An order postponing the EGM to a date to be fixed by the adjudicator but not before 30 September 2001”

Mr CG Young, adjudicator, made an interim order in relation to the application on 16 August 2001. While Mr Young dismissed the application for interim orders as sought by the applicant, he made the following order:

“I further order that the resolutions, if any, passed in respect of motions put to the extraordinary general meeting to be held on 18 August 2001, must not be implemented or otherwise acted upon by the body corporate, pending determination of the application by final order.”

The main grounds in support of the application are contained in a letter from the applicant’s solicitors (dated 20 July 2001) to the Body Corporate Manager for the scheme. A copy of this letter accompanies the application as attachment “A”.

3.	The La Porte D’Or community titles scheme

The community management statement for the La Porte D’Or community titles scheme indicates that the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 1997 (“the Standard Module”) applies to the scheme.

I note that the community management statement indicates that there are 181 lots included in the scheme. As such, the relevant limit for major spending for the scheme is $36,200 ($200 multiplied by 181 lots; refer Dictionary to the Standard Module). The relevant limit for committee spending is $18,100 ($100 multiplied by 181 lots; refer Dictionary to the Standard Module).

4.	Order sought A: An Order declaring that the resolution of the Committee for the Body Corporate purportedly passed at the Meeting held on 9 June 2001 which resumed on 22 June 2001 calling for an Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) is void

I consider that to be successful in an application for an order that a resolution of a body corporate committee is void, the applicant must demonstrate that a significant procedural irregularity, or a breach of the Act occurred in relation to the calling of the meeting, or the voting on the motion in dispute. Alternatively the applicant must demonstrate that the substance of the motion is unlawful, or unreasonable and should not be carried out.

I have reviewed the minutes of the committee meeting held on 9 June 2001 and resumed on 22 June 2001. In the minutes the following statement is recorded regarding the calling of an extraordinary general meeting:

“2. Calling an extraordinary general meeting

The committee decided there were enough issues (such as air conditioning, fire hydrant pipe upgrade, part of a District Court order still outstanding, and the surveillance camera system) needing resolutions of the body corporate to warrant calling an EGM. Possible dates for the EGM were considered, noting that lot owners must be given six weeks notice of the EGM.

RESOLVED unanimously that an EGM will be called for a Saturday in mid-August, at a venue to be arranged by Astute.”

The applicant has not provided me with an argument that any irregularity or breach of the Act occurred in relation to the calling of the committee meeting of 9 June 2001. Further, I do not consider that the resolution made by the committee to call an extraordinary general meeting is unlawful or otherwise invalid.

From a reading of the grounds of the application, it appears that the applicant’s main arguments in relation to the extraordinary general meeting of 18 August 2001 relate to the calling of the extraordinary general meeting, and the motions proposed for consideration at the general meeting. These issues do not support an argument that either the committee meeting, or the committee’s decision to call an extraordinary general meeting of the body corporate were invalid or unlawful.

For the above reasons, I decline to order that the committee’s decision of 22 June 2001 in respect of calling an extraordinary general meeting of the body corporate is void.

5.	Order sought B: An Order declaring that the calling of the EGM and all motions contained in the Notice of EGM are irregular, invalid and void.

The order sought by the applicant identified as “B” can be considered in two parts. Firstly, I intend to consider the issue of the validity of the calling of the extraordinary general meeting of 18 August 2001. Secondly, I will consider the validity of the motions contained in the notice of the extraordinary general meeting for 18 August 2001 and subsequently considered by the body corporate at the meeting of 18 August 2001.

5.1. Calling of the extraordinary general meeting, notice of extraordinary general meeting and agenda for extraordinary general meeting

The applicant makes a number of statements regarding alleged irregularities and breaches of the Act in relation to the calling of the extraordinary general meeting of 18 August 2001, the notice of extraordinary general meeting and the agenda for the extraordinary general meeting. Mr Young, the departmental adjudicator who made an interim order in relation to this application, considered these objections in the course of making his interim order of 16 August 2001.

I agree with Mr Young’s findings and observations in relation to the applicant’s objections to the calling of the extraordinary general meeting, the notice of extraordinary general meeting and the agenda for the general meeting. There is nothing further I wish to add to Mr Young’s comments on these issues, however suffice it to say that I do not consider that there is sufficient substance to any of the applicant’s objections, which would warrant an order invalidating the meeting on the basis of applicant’s alleged defects in the calling, notice, or agenda for the extraordinary general meeting.

5.2. Motions considered at the meeting

The voting paper for the extraordinary general meeting for 18 August 2001 contains 15 motions for consideration by the body corporate. The applicant raises objections to each of the motions proposed. I intend to consider each of the motions and the applicant’s objections in turn.

5.2.1 Motion 1 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting

The applicant’s objection to motion 1 is that the motion goes beyond simply seeking confirmation of the minutes of the previous general meeting, and seeks ratification of any consents and agreements executed pursuant to any resolution of the previous general meeting. The applicant considers that the motion raises two issues (confirmation of minutes, and ratification of previous decisions) that should properly be treated as two distinct motions.

I consider that the second part of the motion is superfluous. If the body corporate has properly given consents, or authorisation to enter agreements at a general meeting, it is not necessary for the body corporate to ratify its own decisions at the subsequent general meeting. If the consents or authorisations were not properly obtained at the first instance, I do not consider that any defects in the previous resolutions would be remedied through such a generally worded motion seeking ratification of the decision.

The primary purpose of motion 1 is to confirm the minutes of the annual general meeting of 16 December 2000. I note that the motion was passed with 59 votes in favour, 10 against and 4 abstentions. I do not intend to overturn the clear intention of owners to confirm the minutes of the previous general meeting by invalidating this resolution. However, in light of my comments above, I consider that it would be inappropriate for the body corporate, or any other party, to rely on the purported ratification of any consents and agreements by this motion as a means of validating previous, and otherwise defective, resolutions.

5.2.2 Motion 2 Ratification of Appeal to District Court

Motion 2 seeks ratification of a committee decision to appeal an order of an adjudicator. I note that the motion was lost with 27 votes in favour, 39 against and 3 abstentions.

In objecting to motion 2, the applicant alleges that the committee meeting minutes do not adequately demonstrate a decision of the committee to submit motion 2 for consideration by the body corporate at the 18 August 2001 meeting. However, the applicant does acknowledge a brief reference to the matter is made in the minutes of the committee meeting of 22 June 2001 (resumed from 9 June 2001).

Despite the fact that the body corporate manager drafted motion 2, I am satisfied that the committee was aware of, and consented to the substance of the motion being included on the agenda for the 18 August 2001 meeting. Further, as noted by Mr Young in his interim order, if the committee did object to any of the motions drafted by the body corporate manager, the committee could have met and decided to take remedial action. I would not invalidate the motion on this basis.

The applicant also raises concern that the explanation of motion 2, and the effects of a “yes” or “no” vote is inaccurate and misleading. The applicant goes on to state that a more balanced approach would have been to include a copy of the relevant District Court decision as an attachment to the notice of meeting.

The Act allows the person proposing a motion to be considered at a general meeting, to include an explanatory note to accompany the agenda for the meeting. While the applicant may have preferred a copy of the District Court decision to be distributed to owners, I do not consider that this was necessary to properly explain the motion. However, if the motion was misleading or otherwise unlawful, then it may be invalid.

While the applicant makes a statement that the notes accompanying motion 2 are misleading, the applicant has not explained or demonstrated how they are misleading. I have reviewed the order of the District Court and fail to see how the motion, or the explanation of the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote is misleading. Therefore, I would not invalidate this motion on the basis of the arguments raised by the applicant.

5.2.3 Motion 3 Recovery of District Court Costs

This motion seeks approval of the body corporate for the committee to “take whatever steps it deems appropriate, including if necessary the institution of proceedings on a “no win-no fee” basis, to recover the costs incurred by the body corporate as a result of the decision to appeal to the District Court”.

I note that the motion was passed with 39 votes in favour, 30 against and 5 abstentions.

The applicant’s main objection to this motion is that there is insufficient information accompanying the motion addressing issues such as the “no-win no-fee” concept, the potential success or liability of any action, the nature of the action proposed, the respondents and the amounts sought.

I agree that motion 3 contains insufficient information for owners to make an informed decision regarding this motion. Section 259 of the Act provides that a body corporate can only start a proceeding if authorised by special resolution (with certain limited exceptions). While bodies corporate should always be able to pursue their legitimate rights, this stronger form of resolution seems to me to be a mechanism to minimise the financial and social costs that may be incurred by owners as a result of ill-considered litigation.

Following on from this, I consider that it is important in consenting to the commencement of a proceeding, that owners understand and are fully aware of the proposed action. Motion 3 is effectively seeking consent from owners for the committee to start a proceeding, or take “whatever other steps it deems appropriate”, the details of which will be worked out by the committee at a later time. I do not consider that this is sufficient. At a minimum the motion should stipulate the action proposed, the proposed respondent, the approximate cost of taking the action and the purpose of the action (I note that the latter is clear from the motion). Further, in respect of the potential cost of the proceeding, I consider that there is merit in the applicant’s argument that the “no-win no-fee” concept should be explained to owners. It is likely that some owners may not realise that there could be potential costs associated with taking a proceeding, even on a “no-win no-fee” basis, and I consider that it is important that this possibility is brought to owners’ attention.

For the above reasons, I intend to order that motion 3 is invalid and of no effect.

5.2.4 Motions 4 and 5 Air Conditioning 18th Floor

Motions 4 and 5 are alternate motions seeking the approval of quotations for replacement of an air conditioning unit on the 18^th floor. Motion 4 seeks the acceptance of a quotation by D & D’s Air Conditioning Services P/L (“D & D”) at a cost of $18,975. Motion 5 seeks the acceptance of a quotation by Acclaim Air Conditioning Pty Ltd (“Acclaim”) at a cost of $24,904. The minutes record that Motion 4 was carried with 50 votes in favour and 25 against, and Motion 5 was lost with 3 votes in favour and 69 against.

The first of the applicant’s objections to these motions is that the quotations are dated after the committee meeting at which it was decided to present the quotations for considerations by owners at a general meeting. The quotations are dated 2 July 2001 and 4 July 2001, whereas the committee meeting in question was finalised in late June 2001. The minutes of the extraordinary general meeting record that the chairperson explained that the reason the quotations were dated after the committee meeting was that fresh quotations had been requested from the service providers as the earlier ones had lapsed. This appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable explanation. It is clear to me that the committee intended that the body corporate consider quotations for replacing the air conditioning units in question at the proposed extraordinary general meeting. Further, it is clear that the fresh quotations were distributed with the notice of extraordinary general meeting. If committee members had an issue with the quotations presented with the notice of extraordinary general meeting, then it was within their power to take remedial action.

The applicant’s second objection is that the quotations relate to air conditioning units with different specifications. Specifically, D & D quote for a 34kw unit, whereas Acclaim quote for a 32.4kw unit. The applicant notes that that the minutes of the relevant committee meeting refer to two quotations for units with identical capacities. The applicant does not allege in the supporting grounds of the application that either of the air conditioning units proposed will fail to carry out their required purposes.

I do not consider that it is always necessary for precisely identical systems be considered by the body corporate when considering replacing an item of common property. In significant work it is likely that specifications of equipment supplied by different service providers may vary slightly. Given that owners were presented with quotes that indicated the slight difference in capacity, I am not satisfied that owners have suffered any disadvantage or been misled by the motions as proposed and considered. I also note that the body corporate has consented to the purchase and installation of the less expensive unit, which also happens to have the larger capacity. I further note that only 3 votes were cast in favour of the alternative system.

It appears to me that the body corporate has made a reasonable and informed decision in respect of this issue. I am unconvinced by the applicant’s arguments that the motion, or resolution is invalid.

5.2.5 Motions 6 and 7 Air Conditioning Ground Floor

Motions 6 and 7 relate to the replacement of the air conditioning unit on the ground floor. Motions 6 and 7 both seek the acceptance of quotes from D & D in relation to the replacement of the air conditioning unit of the ground floor (foyer). The cost of one quotation was $28,545 and the other was $34,078. Although both quotations are provided by D & D, the two quotations clearly contemplate the installation of different systems.

Motion 6 was passed by the body corporate with 57 votes in favour, and 17 against. Motion 7 failed with 8 votes in favour, 62 against and 1 abstention.

The applicant’s first objection to these motions is that the dates of the quotations were post the committee meeting. I have addressed this issue above in relation to motions 4 and 5. I am satisfied with the explanation of the matter outlined in the minutes and the comments made in the submission provided by the body corporate manager.

As noted previously, the relevant limit for major spending for the “La Porte D’Or” community titles scheme is $36,200. As motions 6 and 7 contemplate spending under this limit for major spending, I do not consider that section 104 of the Standard Module (which requires the presentation of two quotations for work above the relevant limit for major spending) is applicable.

Further, I do not agree with the applicant’s assertion that simply because the committee has obtained a number of quotations for work, that all quotations must be presented to the body corporate for consideration at a general meeting. If a party (whether an owner, or the committee) wishes to propose a motion that the body corporate carry out particular work, and the person has obtained a number of quotations, it is for that person to decide which quotations are presented to the body corporate, provided that they comply with section 104 of the Standard Module where applicable.

In this case, it was not necessary for the committee to obtain two quotations for the work being proposed. Further, I am satisfied that by proposing the two motions the committee were affording owners an opportunity to consider alternatives for addressing concerns regarding the air- conditioning unit on the ground floor.

The applicant also raises concern that the quotation of 7 June 2001 makes no reference to Australian Standards. While the applicant has not demonstrated that the work outlined in this quotation does not comply with relevant standards, given that the body corporate has accepted the quotation of 5 July 2001 (which does indicate compliance with Australian Standards), I trust the applicant’s concern in this regard has been satisfied.

For these reasons I decline to invalidate motions 6 or 7.

5.2.6 Motion 8 Action to recover the cost of the surveillance camera system

Motion 8 seeks body corporate approval for the institution of proceedings on a “no-win no-fee” basis to recover the cost of a security system. I note that the motion was passed with 44 votes in favour, 27 against and 2 abstentions. The applicant objects to the motion on the basis that the motion does not contain adequate detail, the committee did not authorise the motion and the explanation of the motion is unbalanced.

For similar reasons to those outlined in my comments regarding motion 3, I consider that there is insufficient information for owners to make an informed decision regarding this motion. This position is further supported in that the minutes of the meeting record that a lot owner raised a question of from whom the cost would be recovered, which indicates to me that quite understandably owners were unsure of the details of the proceedings, or other actions being contemplated in the motion. In the minutes the body corporate manager is recorded as having replied to the lot owner’s question by stating “the committee would have to make that determination if the motion is passed..but that the possibilities include the committee..the insurance company, or the body corporate manager”.

As in respect of motion 3, I consider that the committee is effectively seeking approval to initiate proceedings it considers appropriate without providing owners with basic details of the proposed proceedings or actions, or their potential cost. I consider that owners must be made aware of these basic aspects of the proposed proceeding before it could be properly said that the body corporate consented to the institution of the proceedings.

For these reasons I intend to order that motion 8 is invalid and of no effect.

5.2.7 Motions 9 and 10 Surveillance camera system

The applicant’s objection to motions 9 and 10 is that the committee did not resolve to put these matters forward at the extraordinary general meeting. The minutes of the committee meeting of 9 June 2001, resumed on 22 June 2001 record that “surveillance camera system” was one of the issues the committee raised as warranting the calling of an extraordinary general meeting. As is outlined elsewhere in this statement of reasons, I am satisfied that the committee proposed the matters for consideration at the extraordinary general meeting, and was well aware of the substance of the motions which were ultimately drafted by the body corporate manager. I am satisfied that the committee properly delegated the task of drafting the motions to the body corporate manager, and further I am satisfied that the committee had ample opportunity to review and amend any motions prior to the meeting.

I would not invalidate motions 9 or 10 on the basis provided by the applicant.

5.2.8 Motion 11 Special Levy to upgrade fire hydrant pumps

Motion 11 seeks body corporate approval for a special levy to be struck to pay for an upgrade to fire hydrant pipes. The motion was passed with 55 votes in favour, 16 against and 1 abstention.

The applicant objects to the motion on the basis that no quotations in relation to the work were attached to the voting paper, and in addition, reference was made in the committee meeting minutes to reports and a quotation which were not included with the voting paper.

There is no requirement under the Act that a motion to strike a special levy refer to, or be accompanied by, a quotation. However, it may be necessary to provide owners with quotations in respect of motions actually seeking body corporate approval to spend body corporate funds, whether it be in relation to repairs and maintenance, improvements or any other expenditure.

Further, there is no requirement under the Act for the reports referred to in the committee meeting minutes to be provided in relation to a motion seeking the calling of a special levy. Of course, if an owner wishes to view such reports, the Act provides a mechanism for owners to inspect or obtain copies of any body corporate documents.

For these reasons, I decline to invalidate this motion on the basis of the grounds provided by the applicant.

5.2.9 Motions 12 and 13 Upgrade of fire hydrant pumps

Motions 12 and 13 are alternative motions concerning a proposal to replace fire hydrant pipes. Motion 12 seeks the acceptance of a quotation by Coomera Shores Plumbing (“Coomera”) for $135,300 (including GST). Motion 13 seeks the acceptance of a quotation by Coast Wide Plumbing (Coast Wide) for $140,250. The minutes record that Motion 12 was carried with 56 votes in favour, and 16 against. Motion 13 is recorded as being lost with 2 in favour, and 59 against.

The applicant states that the quotation from Coomera quotes $153,000 plus GST, whereas motion 12 seeking acceptance of the Coomera quotation states an amount of $135,000. The minutes of the meeting record that a discussion was held regarding the discrepancy and the chairperson stated that the original quote included $30 000 for work in the basement which was not necessary.

The applicant raises a further concern that the quotation by Coast Wide was not provided with the notice of meeting and that it was simply referred to in correspondence from Eagle Pumps Fire Service, which did accompany the notice of meeting. In the submission made in response to the application, the body corporate manager for the scheme states that a copy of the quotation from Coast Wide was included with the notice of extraordinary general meeting. The body corporate manager has provided a copy of the relevant quotation. In replying to the submission, the applicant reiterates that the quotation was not attached to the voting paper or notice of extraordinary general meeting forwarded to the applicant.

Given the parties positions on this point, it is extremely difficult for me to verify whether or not the quotation was included with the notice of extraordinary general meeting forwarded to the applicant. Without making specific reference to this situation, it is not unusual for minor administrative errors (such as the mistaken omission of an attachment) to occur in relation to the calling of a body corporate meeting, or any other meeting for that matter.

However, even if I accept that the quotation was not sent out to owners with the notice of extraordinary general meeting, I consider that it is important to note that the applicant acknowledges that the letter from Eagle Pumps Fire Service did accompany the notice of extraordinary general meeting. This letter describes the quotation and provides further information in relation to the quotation. Given that the voting paper alerted owners to the existence of the quotation, and also given that the owners did receive the correspondence from Eagle Pumps Fire Service which I consider accurately described the quotation, I would not invalidate motions 12 or 13 on the basis that owners were not provided with two quotations.

The applicant refers to the letter from Eagle Pumps Fire Service, in which it is stated that Coast Wide was the only company to sight drawings for the job. The applicants concern appears to be that the quotation from Coomera (which was accepted by the body corporate) appears to be subject to examination of relevant drawings. Potentially therefore, the cost to the body corporate could be more than the quoted amount.

I do not intend to invalidate the motion on this basis. In significant work and projects such as this, it is not unlikely that issues will arise in the course of carrying out the work, which will impact on the ultimate cost. However, I do consider that the committee should obtain a more detailed quotation after providing Coomera with all relevant documentation before Coomera is engaged to replace the copper pipe work. If the more detailed quotation is significantly different from the existing quotation, I consider the committee would be required to seek fresh approval of the body corporate before authorising any contractor or tradesperson to carry out the work.

The applicant also states that the committee did not resolve to submit motions 12 and 13 for consideration at the extraordinary general meeting. For the reasons I have stated in relation to other motions, I am satisfied that the committee properly authorised the inclusion of motions concerning the upgrade of fire hydrant pipes for the agenda of the extraordinary general meeting.

Finally, the applicant states that a quotation from John Hall Plumbing was not provided. Section 104 of the Standard Module requires two quotations to be provided to owners when considering expenditure above the relevant limit for major spending. It is for the proposer of the motion to provide the quotations. The fact that the proposer of the motion obtains more than two quotations does not compel the proposer of the motion to present all quotations to owners.

As a result, I do not intend to invalidate motions 12 or 13.

5.2.10 Motions 14 and 15 Air conditioning 5^th floor, and Air conditioning 22^nd floor

Motions 14 and 15 relate to proposals to replace air conditioning units on the 5^th floor and 22^nd floor respectively. Both motions simply seek body corporate approval for the replacement of the air conditioning units on the respective floors “at a cost not to exceed the cost the body corporate resolved to pay to replace the unit on the 18^th floor”.

The applicant objects to this motion because it lacks particularity. I agree that the drafting of the motion is not ideal in that it is dependent on the passing of a separate motion to be capable of having meaning. However, I do consider that the motion is sufficiently clear for owners to understand the effect of a “yes” vote. I believe that in considering these motions, owners would be aware that by passing the motion, the body corporate would be authorising the expenditure of up to $24,904 (the higher of the two quotations considered for the replacement of the air conditioning unit on Level 18) for the replacement of the air conditioning unit for the 5^th floor and up to $24,904 for the replacement of the air conditioning unit on the 22^nd floor.

However, in passing motion 4, the body corporate resolved to replace the air conditioning unit on the 18^th floor at a cost of $18,975. This has the effect that the body corporate has consented to the expenditure of up to $18,975 on the replacement of the air conditioning unit on the 5^th floor and $18,975 on the replacement of the air conditioning unit on the 22^nd floor.

The applicant argues that the replacement of the two air conditioning units can be seen as a single project of improvement to common property, and therefore the cost of both units should be considered together. The applicant goes on to argue, that as a result, the legislation requires that the matters be authorised by special resolution. From the information before me, I am not satisfied that the two motions should be seen as a single project. It appears that despite the fact that the items of common property in question provide a similar service to different parts of the building, the air conditioning units are distinct, and require their own individual maintenance. Further, I am satisfied that the replacement of a defective air conditioning unit is a question of repairs and maintenance and not an improvement to common property.

The applicant claims that section 104 of the Standard Module has not been complied in relation to motions 14 and 15. As stated previously, I am satisfied that the two air conditioning units should be treated separately. As the proposed cost of each air conditioning units ($18,975) is below the relevant limit for major spending for the scheme ($36,200) I do not consider that section 104 of the Standard Module is relevant.

For these reasons, I decline to invalidate motions 14 or 15.

6.	Order Sought: C An Order cancelling the EGM

Order C as sought by the applicant has now become irrelevant, given that the extraordinary general meeting in question took place on 18 August 2001.

7.	Order sought D: In the event that all or any of Orders A, B and C are made, then a further Order that the Committee of the Body Corporate distribute to all Lot Owners a copy of the Application, the Adjudicators Orders and Adjudicators Reasons for Decision

It is not the usual practice for adjudicators to order that a copy of an order and the accompanying statement of reasons be distributed to all owners of lots included in the community titles scheme. However, an order in these terms could be made if the adjudicator felt that there would be benefit to the body corporate to distribute the order and reasons to all lot owners.

In the case of the “La Porte D’Or” community titles scheme, I am mindful that there are a large number of lots included in the scheme and the cost of distributing the application, the order and the statement of reasons would be significant. For this reason, I do not intend to order that the application, order and statement of reasons be distributed to all owners. Any owners that do wish to peruse or obtain a copy of these documents have a right to inspect the body corporate records and obtain copies of documents pursuant to section 162 of the Act.2n