Fairfield Corporate Park [2004] QBCCMCmr 91 (13 February 2004)

Last Updated: 30 September 2005

REFERENCE: 0626-2003

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 9 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	4759
Name of Scheme:	Fairfield Corporate Park
Address of Scheme:	35 Ethel Street YEERONGPILLY QLD 4105

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to an application made under the abovementioned Act by Mr & Mrs Lipski, the Owner(s) of lot 7

I hereby order that the application for an order that the owners of lots 4 and 6 are responsible for of the costs of replacing the motors on the roller doors of their garages is dismissed.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0626-2003

"Fairfield Corporate Park" CTS 4759

Application

Fairfield Corporate Park Community Titles Scheme (FCP) is an 8 lot scheme under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act (Act) and the Act’s Commercial Module Regulation (Commercial Module). The scheme is designed for commercial purposes.

Lot boundaries are designated under a building units plan (now known as a building format plan).

This application is by Julek Lipski and Ada Lipski, the owners of lot 7 (applicants) seeking orders against Meegan Crocker and Gemgist Pty Ltd, the owners of lots 4 and 6 respectively (respondents).

Background

The applicants are seeking orders that the owners of lots 4 and 6 be responsible for the costs of replacing the motors on their roller doors and that they be required to reimburse the body corporate for the amount of these costs.

Submissions

The applicants’ main submissions were to the effect that each lot has its own roller door and that remedying items that have deteriorated through use by individual lots should be at the expense of the individual lot owners rather than the body corporate.

The respondents’ submissions included a statement that the roller doors are unable to be operated in a safe manner without a working motor and, as they are external doors, are the responsibility of the body corporate to maintain. There is also a submission that a precedent has already been set in terms of the body corporate using body corporate funds to repair roller doors.

Decision

Applicable law

The general rule is that an owner of a lot must maintain their lot in good condition (Commercial Module, 100(2)) and the body corporate must maintain common property (Commercial Module, 89(1).

However, there are some exceptions to these general rules. For example,

•	Lot owners must maintain improvements made by them to the common property for the benefit of their lot, unless excused by the body corporate (Commercial Module, 94(3)); and
•	Parts of utility infrastructure that service multiple lots or are located within boundary structures are common property, even if physically located within a lot (Act, 20(1)).

Further, where lots are created under a building format plan, the body corporate has some additional maintenance responsibilities, including the maintenance of doors, railings and other structures that form a boundary between common property and an owner’s lot, even if physically located within a lot (Commercial Module, 89(2));

Responsibility for motors on roller doors

The roller doors are doors situated in a boundary wall separating lots from common property. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the body corporate to maintain these doors (Commercial Module, 89(2)(a)(ii)).

The applicants’ submissions request that a distinction be drawn between maintaining the door structure and the door mechanism. It is arguable that it is more convenient for owners to maintain the internal mechanism of the doors themselves rather than giving access to the body corporate to maintain the door. It is also arguable that some owners may use their door more often than other owners, requiring additional maintenance of those doors.

However, I am persuaded by the respondent’s submissions that the motor forms an integral part of the door. Given that the Act requires the body corporate to maintain the door, the body corporate should also maintain the door motor.

The necessary consequence of this decision is that all owners contribute to the costs of maintaining the roller doors through their levied contributions to the body corporate. The applicants’ submissions suggest that this is not just and equitable. However, the door mechanisms are consistent for each lot and each owner will need maintenance of that mechanism at some point in time. This is not a case of one or two owners installing their own roller door and becoming responsible for maintenance of that door as an owner improvement (Commercial Module, 89(3) and 94(3)). There is also no evidence that the maintenance was required because of damage to the mechanism by the respective owners (Commercial Module, 89(4)).

Order

For these reasons, I make the order above.