La Porte D'Or [2003] QBCCMCmr 198 (3 November 2003)

Last Updated: 17 May 2005

REFERENCE: 0356-2003

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 9 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 QLD 4217

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to an application made under the abovementioned Act by Patricia Geor & Margaret Binette, the Owner(s) of lot 13

I hereby order, by consent of Margaret Binette and Patricia Geor, the owners of lot 13 (Margaret and Patricia) and Joyce Johnston, the owner of lot 25 (Joy), having on 7 October 2003 reached a mediated settlement of their dispute, and having signed an agreement setting out the terms of settlement and having requested that a consent order be made for those settlement terms by an adjudicator pursuant to section 276(5) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 ("the Act"), must abide by those agreed terms which are set out below: 1. Joy Johnston has agreed to continue maintaining her balcony (602 Golden Gate) by only mopping it as required; 2. Margaret and Patricia agree that in the future if they have any water overflow, which they believe is coming directly from unit 602, they will first call Joy on the phone. 3. They all agree to only call between 5.30 am and 7 pm; 4. All parties agree that they can inspect each others unit regarding future water overflow and they agree to do this immediately they notice a problem.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0356-2003

"La Porte D’Or" CTS 12681

Application

La Porte D’Or Community Titles Scheme (La Porte D’Or) is a high rise residential scheme under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act (Act).

This application was by Margaret Binette and Patricia Geor, the owners of lot 13 (applicants) seeking orders against Joyce Johnston, the owner of lot 25 (respondent) in relation to water alleged to be pouring from the respondent’s balcony onto the applicants’ premises.

Background

The submissions of the applicants alleged that the respondent was watering her plants excessively resulting in water overflowing the balcony into their premises.

The submissions on behalf of the respondent denied excessive watering of plants was resulting in water overflow from the balcony. These submissions said that the respondent had, on occasion, sluiced her balcony down with water in order to clean it. However, after receiving complaints the respondent had commenced mopping her balcony rather than sluicing it down with water. The submissions also said that the tiles on the balcony had been recently fixed to prevent rainfall from forming pools of water on the balcony that would subsequently need to be swept off. Other overflow could have been caused by rainfall and the positioning of overflow spouts on various balconies.

Order

This dispute was successfully meditated by the parties. I have made an order on the terms agreed by the parties.