Palm Village [2006] QBCCMCmr 475 (29 August 2006)

Last Updated: 19 December 2006

REFERENCE: 0348-2006

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 9 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	21302
Name of Scheme:	Palm Village
Address of Scheme:	QUENSLAND

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

Meegan Hetherington, the Owner(s) of lot 25

I hereby order that the application for an order that the body corporate pay the applicant’s insurance excess of $100 is dismissed.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0348-2006

"Palm Village" CTS 21302

Application

Palm Village Community Titles Scheme (Palm Village) is a 26 lot scheme under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Act) and the Act’s Standard Module Regulation (Standard Module). The scheme is designed for residential purposes with lot boundaries designated under a group titles plan (now known as a standard format plan).

This application is by Meegan Hetherington, owner of lot 25 (applicant) seeking orders against the body corporate for Palm Village (respondent).

The applicant says that contractors engaged by the body corporate to clean the gutters caused damage to her roof. It is submitted that this resulted in the roof leaking. The associated damage to the applicant’s lot was covered by insurance but the applicant had to pay the $100 excess. The applicant seeks the amount of this excess from the body corporate.

The body corporate committee has made a submissions to the effect that the committee had engaged the contractor to clean the roofs and gutters of the entire complex but subsequent hail storms had not caused anyone else problems except for the applicant. The committee decided not to accept the applicant’s claim that the body corporate should pay the excess.

Decision

For schemes registered under a standard format plan of subdivision, the body corporate must insure to full replacement value each building that contains more than one lot separated only by a common wall (Standard Module, 129).

If an event affects only one lot then normally the lot owner is liable to pay the excess unless the body corporate decides it is unreasonable in all the circumstances for the owner to bear the liability (Standard Module, 133(3)). However, if the event affects two or more lots then the body corporate should normally pay the excess (Standard Module, 133(4)).

The event in question was water leakage through the applicant’s roof. The damage contributing to this event was potentially caused by the contractors engaged by the body corporate to clean the roof and gutters. However, there is no evidence that satisfies me that the body corporate was particularly at fault in engaging the contractor.

In the circumstances, the body corporate is entitled to apply the general rule that the lot owner is liable to pay the excess for an event affecting only one lot (Standard Module, 133(3)). There is no evidence that persuades me that the body corporate’s refusal to pay this excess was unreasonable in all the circumstances.

Order

For these reasons, the application is dismissed.