One Park Road [2005] QBCCMCmr 754 (7 December 2005)

Last Updated: 13 July 2007

REFERENCE: 0419-2005A

INTERIM ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 9 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	2114
Name of Scheme:	One Park Road
Address of Scheme:	1 Park Road MILTON QLD 4064

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

owners of a number of lots in the scheme

I hereby order that, pending a final determination of the dispute, the body corporate must not implement any resolution passed pursuant to motions 8, 9 or 10 of the extraordinary general meeting held on 14 June 2005. This is an interim order that extends the operation of an earlier interim order. This order will remain in effect for a period of not longer than six months. It is the responsibility of the applicants to apply to extend this order if no final determination has been made within that period. This order will automatically lapse upon a final order being made or this application being withdrawn.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0419-2005A

"One Park Road" CTS 2114

Application

One Park Road Community Titles Scheme (One Park Road) is a 39 lot scheme under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act (Act) and the Act’s Commercial Module Regulation (Commercial Module).

This is an application for an extension of an interim order. It arises out of an application by Bentonic Pty Ltd (lot 1), Chung-Ming Su & Shu-Chen Lin Su (lot 2), Nunzio La Rosa (lot 3), Kiara Holdings Pty Ltd (lot 4), I-Ying Wang (lot 7), Chi-Chang Chen (lot 8), Audax Australia Pty Ltd (lot 16), Jimmy Lok Kee Ma & Verney Mei Kuen Ma (lot 29), Vanpost Pty Ltd (lot 34) and Werner Friedhelm Sauer (lot 41) (applicants) seeking orders against the body corporate (respondent).

Extension of interim order

On 14 June 2005 an interim order was granted to prevent the body corporate granting car parking licences pending a resolution of the dispute. Since that time the solicitors for the applicants indicated that a further application was likely to resolve the issue and the present application would then be withdrawn.

The solicitors for another owner have submitted that the only live issue in the present application relates to car parking within the scheme and that this has nothing to do with the relief sought in a further application that was made by the applicants. It is submitted that the present application should proceed to a final determination post haste.

The solicitors for the applicants have elected to pursue the application rather than withdraw it. They have further submitted that it is at least appropriate to extend the interim pending an upcoming appeal concerning a car parking issue. I consider it appropriate to extend the interim order and allow the application to proceed to a final determination. If the dispute is resolved in the meantime then the applicants can withdraw the application at that time.

Order

For these reasons, I make the order above.