Riverton [2003] QBCCMCmr 249 (26 November 2003)

Last Updated: 17 May 2005

REFERENCE: 0304-2003

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 9 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	10486
Name of Scheme:	Riverton
Address of Scheme:	82 Sandford Street ST LUCIA QLD 4067

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

the body corporate of Riverton

I hereby order that the application by the body corporate for orders against Margaret Reid, the former owner of lot 35 (respondent) in relation to her alleged breach of by-laws and occupier duties is dismissed.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0304-2003

"Riverton" CTS 10486

Application

This application is by the body corporate of Riverton (applicant) seeking orders against Margaret Reid, the former owner of lot 35 (respondent). The applicant has alleged that the respondent is breaching the by-laws for the scheme and her occupier duties. The applicant has therefore sought orders that the respondent dispose of rubbish in the garbage chute and cease leaving the garbage chute door open. Submissions on behalf of the respondent have claimed that the respondent’s age and health has made it difficult for her to use the garbage chute since one of the owners added an extra door over the garbage chute.

A title search indicates that the respondent has sold her unit since the date of the application. The body corporate has confirmed that the respondent is no longer in occupation and the body corporate was invited to withdraw its application on this basis. However, the body corporate has advised that it wishes to continue with the application as they are interested to see what ruling is made.

Decision

Under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act (Act), an adjudicator to whom an application is referred may make an order that is just and equitable to resolve a dispute of the kind covered by the Act (Act, 276).

The body corporate’s application relates solely to the respondent’s behaviour as an occupier of a lot in the scheme. As she has now left the scheme it seems questionable that there is any continuing dispute over which I have jurisdiction to make the orders sought. Even if I have jurisdiction to make the orders sought, as a matter of discretion I would refuse to make the orders sought on the basis that the respondent leaving the scheme has rendered those orders unnecessary.

Order

For these reasons, the application is dismissed.