Valley View [2008] QBCCMCmr 131 (17 April 2008)

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

I hereby order that Judy Carter of Stewart Silver King and Burns Community Managers, Gold Coast (appointee) is authorised to call, hold and chair an annual general meeting (meeting) of the body corporate for Valley View.

I further order that this authorisation:

Commences on the date of this order and ceases in three months from the date of this order unless altered by a subsequent order of an adjudicator. Further, the authorisation will cease immediately upon the appointment of a committee for Valley View if that occurs earlier;
Allows the appointee to perform obligations of the committee or any member of the committee in respect of the calling, holding and chairing of the meeting. In particular, the appointee is to prepare motions and budgets for adoption of the body corporate at the meeting and prepare the minutes of the meeting; and
Is subject to the appointee, as far as practicable, following the procedures in the Standard Module governing giving notice for and holding an annual general meeting. In particular, a notice requesting nominations for committee positions and submission of motions for consideration at the meeting must give owners at least three weeks to submit their nominations and motions. However, the giving of notices and the holding of the general meeting need not coincide with the end of financial year date of the body corporate.

I further order that the appointee is entitled to a payment totalling $1,200 for completing the appointment in compliance with this authorisation.

Valley View Community Titles Scheme (Valley View) is a 10 lot scheme under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act (Act) and the Act’s Standard Module Regulation (Standard Module).

Judith Burgess, owner of lot 2 (applicant) has lodged this application seeking the immediate appointment of an administrator. The applicant says that committee members, including the body corporate manager, resigned after a previous order requiring certain maintenance to be performed for the scheme.[1] The applicant has provided a quotation for Judy Carter of Stewart Silver King and Burns Community Managers (proposed administrator) to administer the scheme at a cost of $2,500 per annum.

The majority of submissions support the appointment of an administrator. However, a submission from Michele Brown expresses concern about the increase in costs if an administrator is appointed and says that the owners of fifty percent of units, being units 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10, would prefer that just a body corporate manager be appointed.

The submissions indicate that the scheme is not currently operating in accordance with the legislation. The legislation provides for the election of a committee to represent owners and for the replacement of committee members upon vacancies arising (Act 98-100, Standard Module 7-25). Further, annual general meetings must be held within three months after the end of each of the scheme’s financial years (Standard Module, 60).

It is obvious that the body corporate for Valley View is not presently being administered by owners in accordance with the legislation. This provides some basis for an order to appoint the proposed administrator at a cost of $2,500 per annum. However, the legislation recognises self management as an inherent aspect of community titles schemes (Act, 4(a)). If owners are willing to be involved in the management of their own scheme then it seems preferable to allow this to occur rather than have a third party make decisions about how the body corporate is to operate.

The proposed administrator has provided a reduced quotation of $1,200 to call a general meeting that will allow owners to put the scheme back on a proper legal footing. For this limited cost of $120 per lot, the proposed administrator will undertake the duties of the committee in preparing for the meeting, including preparing budgets for adoption by owners and putting forward any motions the administrator considers to be necessary or appropriate.

I have therefore decided to appoint the proposed administrator to perform the obligations that should be undertaken by a committee or individual committee members in calling a general meeting (Act, 278). In calling this meeting, the appointee should follow the legislative procedures as far as practicable. However, owners should be given three weeks to submit nominations and motions and then the meeting should be called immediately rather than waiting for the end of financial year of the body corporate.

The authorisation is limited to allowing the appointee to call the meeting within a three month period. The authorisation will also immediately cease as soon as owners have elected a committee as required by the legislation (Act, 98-101). If owners want the continuing assistance of a professional body corporate manager throughout the year then a motion proposing appointment of a body corporate manager will need to be put to the meeting and adopted by owners. Alternatively, if insufficient eligible persons nominate for committee membership then it is likely to be necessary to make an order appointing an administrator despite the likely increased costs to owners.

I therefore emphasise to owners that if they do not want to pay the increased costs of full administration over an extended period then they should nominate themselves, or other eligible persons, for committee membership. Owners will also need to take responsibility for ensuring that any necessary maintenance is performed by the body corporate. That will require owners to obtain quotations for the performance of any work and liaise with the administrator regarding the submission of a motion that will allow owners to vote to perform the work at the meeting.[2]

Some submissions indicate that it may be necessary for the body corporate to engage in some urgent spending for maintenance and insurance purposes even before it would be possible to call a general meeting. Alternatively, it may be necessary to temporarily fence off potential hazards on the common property. If necessary, a further application can be brought to seek the authorisation of an adjudicator for emergency expenditure. However, it would be sensible to provide at least two quotations for performance of the proposed work with any application for approval of emergency expenditure.

The applicant has also made a submission to the effect that she should be reimbursed for her costs of making the application. However, the Act establishes low cost and informal dispute resolution procedures. There are very limited circumstances in which adjudicators are authorised to make costs orders (Act 270(3), Act 280). There is no provision authorising an adjudicator to make a costs order in the present circumstances.[3]

[1] Valley View, Order 1002-2006, R Miskinis, 11 May 2007.
[2] For further information on how to submit motions for consideration at a body corporate meeting refer to Fact Sheets published by the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management, www.justice.qld.gov.au/files/CourtsAndTribunals/Submitting_Motions.pdf, or telephone the Information Line on 1800 060 119.
[3] Refer Woodrange Pty Ltd v. Le Grande Broadwater Body Corporate [2004] QDC 215, McGill DCJ, 19 July 2004 at page 225.

Number of Scheme:	9095
Name of Scheme:	Valley View
Address of Scheme:	77 Railway Street MUDGEERABA QLD 4213

Queensland Body Corporate and Community Management Commissioner - Adjudicators Orders

Valley View [2008] QBCCMCmr 131 (17 April 2008)