|
|
[Home]
[Databases]
[WorldLII]
[Search]
[Feedback]
Queensland Body Corporate and Community Management Commissioner - Adjudicators Orders |
![[AustLII]](299.1.gif)
Queensland Body Corporate and Community Management Commissioner - Adjudicators OrdersLast Updated: 19 September 2008
REFERENCE: 0509-2008
INTERIM ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR
MADE UNDER PART 9 OF CHAPTER 6
BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997
|
Number of Scheme:
|
9646
|
|
Name of Scheme:
|
Aegean
|
|
Address of Scheme:
|
30 Laycock Street SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217
|
TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to an application made under the abovementioned Act by
Scotri Pty Ltd, the Owner of Lot 40:
|
I hereby order that the Body Corporate for Aegean must not implement
Motion 13, purportedly passed at the annual general meeting of 30 May 2008,
or
otherwise disconnect the scheme’s PABX system, until a final order is made
in respect of this dispute.
I hereby order that the Body Corporate for Aegean must not implement
Motion 10, purportedly passed at the annual general meeting of 30 May 2008,
until a final order is made in respect of this dispute.
I further order that the application for interim orders is otherwise
dismissed.
This interim order has effect until six (6) months have elapsed from the
date of this order, a further interim or final order for
the application is
issued, or until the application is withdrawn, rejected or otherwise ended
(whichever is the earlier).
|
STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0509-2008
“Aegean” CTS 9646
Aegean community titles scheme 9646 (Aegean) consists of 126 lots and common property. The Community Management Statement (CMS) for Aegean indicates that the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 1997 (Accommodation Module) applies to the scheme. Department of Natural Resources Mines and Water records show the scheme is registered as Building Units Plan 5555.
INTERIM APPLICATION
This is an application for interim orders lodged by Scotri Pty Ltd, Owner of Lot 40 (applicant), who is represented by Bryan Hateley, on 19 June 2006 under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Act). The applicant sought interim orders against the Body Corporate for Aegean (respondent) in the following terms:
Seek interim order that the PABX not be turned off on 30 November 2008 until a satisfactory solution has been achieved to owners and Management of the Building as the passing of the motion puts the Aegean Body Corporate at risk of litigation from the Building Managers as shutting down of the Telephone System will restrict their trade and also cause all other problems which have not been considered with passing of this motion.
Suspension of the New Committee Elected and Motions passed at the 30 May 2008 AGM until such tome a AGM is correctly effected by all voting members voting in accordance with the Body Corporate and Community Management ACT.
The application also seeks the following final order:
The PABX not be turned OFF on 30 November 2008 until a satisfactory solution has been achieved for all concerned. IE Owners, OH&S issues, Night-tell, Management, Staff, Security, and Emergency.
The Annual General Meeting to be re-conviened/re-run under the Body Corporate and Community Management ACT correctly
I believe that Body Corporate Services would be the most cost effective organisation to Re-Run an AGM Election etc. as they would still hold the template from the previous one.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
In accordance with section 247 of the Act, the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management has referred the application to me to decide whether the nature or urgency of the circumstances of the application warrant an interim order. The Commissioner has referred the application notwithstanding that affected persons have not been given notice of the application or afforded an opportunity to make submissions about the application[1].
An initial delay occurred with this application in that it was necessary to seek clarification of numerous aspects of the application, including ensuring that the application fell within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner’s Office.
Once clarification was received, I invited submissions in response to the application from the Committee, the Body Corporate Manager (BCM) and Johjen Pty Ltd (Johjen), who is the caretaking service contractor for the scheme, in regard to the interim order application. Submissions were received in due course from the Committee and Johjen.
MATTERS IN DISPUTE
This application relates to two issues arising from the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the scheme held on 30 May 2008. The first issue is a resolutionto discontinue the PABX telephone system and the second is the validity of the meeting in regard to the handling of voting papers. I will summarise the circumstances of each issue in turn.
The applicant has provided some information that does not appear to be directly related to the two issues in the orders sought. In some respects it seems that this material reflects a degree of conflict within the scheme. The Committee has commented that it disputes much of what is said but does not propose to respond because the matters have no bearing on the outcomes sought. I have not considered this information in context of the orders sought. If any owner has concerns relating to such issues, they should pursue those matters separately and if they are unable to resolve them directly they can consider whether it would be appropriate to lodge a dispute resolution application on those issues.
PABX Telephone System
It seems that PABX issues began over 12 months ago. Committee meetings on 2 February and 20 April 2007 note that the building manager (Johjen) was monitoring the PABX ‘situation’ and the latter resolved (7 votes to 0) that there be no further action. The meeting on 16 August 2007 then notes, in regard to correspondence, that the PABX system was purchased second-hand by the Body Corporate in 1992 and that Johjen pays all costs and charges 10% of the call costs to the Body Corporate. It was also reported that the PABX handles the emergency call out for the Fire Brigade and lift maintenance company, that no mobile phone calls were charged to the Body Corporate, and that the PABX system services resident owners and holiday lots.
On 2 November 2007 the Committee resolved that Johjen obtain alternative quotes for the maintenance of the PABX system and an upgrade of the PABX equipment. The meeting on 22 February 2008 noted that Johjen had obtained a proposal from Optus to replace the system with reduced line rental and maintenance costs, and address apparent delays in dealing with faults. A higher quote was also obtained from the company who currently maintains the system. The meeting resolved by (6 votes to 0) to accept the Optus quote of $475.53 per month for five years (including line rental, direct in-dial and equipment).
The applicant says that, without any justification, consultation or notification with himself (as then Chairperson) or Johjen, a flying minute was then sent to Committee members on 13 March and resolved (5 votes to 1) on 20 March 2008 to rescind the February decision and reconsider the issue at the next meeting. On 14 April 2008 the following resolution was passed:
PABX
RESOLVED that a sub-committee comprising Mr S Bubecich, Mr H Maher and Mr J Brown be established to investigate and report back to the Committee on the PABX system and the after hours telephone service.
Sub Committee to advise the Committee on:
Vote Yes 6 No 0
FURTHER RESOLVED that the sub-committee provide reasons for and against each.
Vote Yes 6 No 0
On 12 May 2008 a circular was distributed to owners advising that a motion had been omitted from the voting paper for the AGM. A voting paper was included with the circular. The minutes of the AGM record the following in regard to this motion:
13 PABX DISCONNECTION ORDINARY RESOLUTION
Submitted by Steve Bubevich Lot 124
due to high costs in maintenance and line rentals and no returns to owners the pabx to be discontinued from 30/11/2008.
RESOLVED that motion 13 be CARRIED Yes 30 No 26 Abstain 4
The Minutes of the next Committee meeting on 11 July 2008 records the following:
Disabling the PABX – Motion 13 of the Annual General Meeting resolved to discontinue the use of the PABX from 30 September 2008. The Committee had previously appointed a sub-committee to report to this meeting to answer certain questions on the PABX and Nitel (the night answering service).
Who owns PABX? The Body Corporate currently owns the PABX and pays approximately $390.00 per month for line rental. The Committee requested that Mr Ian D’Arcy give his opinion of whether a further motion to general meeting would be required to dispose of the asset. Action Body Corporate Manager
What is PABX used for? The PABX allows occupiers to call room to room and also allows the rooms to contact reception.
Is the PABX required? The meeting was advised that the Fire Department does not require use of the PABX and the lift lines and the intercom work independently to this system. The main use for the PABX would be for letting units and for use by the Resident Manager.
What are the options if it is removed? The Resident Manger, if they take over ownership of the PABX could provide and charge owners for use of the system.
Are there any health and safety issues on removal of the PABX and after house telephone service? The sub-committee would have to report back to the committee on this question.
RESOLVED that the sub-committee make its final report at the next meeting and that Capitol Body Corporate Administration investigate the legality of disposing of the asset.
VOTING – YES 6 NO 0 ABSTAIN 0
The applicant says that no report on the PABX was completed or presented to the Committee on 11 July 2008, and that the sub-committee appeared to have done nothing in three months. The applicant also notes that the July Committee meeting minutes indicate that the PABX will be discontinued from 30 September 2008, contrary to the AGM minutes. On 11 July 2008 Bubevich did not take the role of Chair and resigned from the Committee. The applicant claims that when Bubevich submitted the AGM motion on the PABX and nominated for Chair he had put his lot on the market and knew he wouldn’t be an owner or committee member once the sale settled. The applicant believes that settlement is in late August.
The applicant says the PABX is owned by the Body Corporate and no allowance or provision has been made for a telephone system into or out of the building. He argues that the PABX service is a utility service, included under the term utility infrastructure, and as such is part of common property and cannot unlawfully be interfered with. He says the PABX is located on common property and under section 108 of the Accommodation Module the Body Corporate has an obligation to maintain the PABX and cannot simply pass a resolution to rid itself of its duties.
The applicant says no consideration was give to the fire indicator panel or the evacuation warning system which he understands has links to the PABX. He also believes that Johjen has reduced line rental and other costs associated with the PABX. He is concerned that turning the PABX off will restrict trade for the building manager and risk litigation for the Body Corporate. He says Johjen will not provide a new telephone service and shouldn’t have to when the system is owned by the Body Corporate and is not covered in the management agreement.
In regard to this issue, the submission from the Committee opposes the orders sought and says:
The submission from Johjen is that the PABX not be turned off until a ‘satisfactory solution’ has been achieved for owners and building management. They say:
Voting Papers
The applicant says that a breach of the legislation occurred in that an owner, Joe Brown, handed some 23 ballot envelopes and motion papers to the Secretary just before the AGM started. The applicant claims Brown had an interest and was elected to the new Committee. The applicant asserts that ballot envelopes and voting papers are to be handed to the secretary personally, and refers to two previous adjudications[3]. He argues that the validity of the ballot envelopes and voting papers cannot be verified as those voters were not present and he believes this altered the outcome of the election and voting on motions. He indicates that the Secretary knows who the votes came from and marked them in some way. However he says the current Committee are not interested in discussing the election issue with him.
In regard to this issue, the submission from the Committee opposes the orders sought and says:
The submission from Johjen supports the application and says:
JURISDICTION
I am satisfied that this is a matter which falls within the legislative dispute resolution provisions.[4]
Section 276(1) of the Act provides that an adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances (including a declaratory order) to resolve a dispute, in the context of a community titles scheme, about:
(a) a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the CMS; or
(b) the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under the Act or the CMS; or
(c) a claimed or anticipated contractual matter about -
(i) the engagement of a person as a body corporate manager or service contractor; or
(ii) the authorisation of a person as a letting agent.
An order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting, in a way stated in the order.[5] An adjudicator's order may contain ancillary and consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate.[6]
Section 279(1) of the Act allows an adjudicator to make an interim order if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that an interim order is necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances of the application.
DETERMINATION
Urgent interim relief
At this time, I am concerned with the application for an interim order and the threshold issue of whether interim orders are warranted. An interim order will not be granted unless is it necessary due to the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the application relates.[7] Any order granted must be just and equitable in the circumstances.[8] The examples in section 279 of the Act indicate the usual circumstances where an interim order might be made and are in the nature of injunctive relief. While it is not possible to define the range of matters that might be the subject of an interim order, an applicant needs to establish that the circumstances warrant an interim order. An interim order will not be made if the only urgency relates to an applicant’s desire to resolve or expedite the matters in dispute, or where the nature of the circumstances are such that the matter is not capable of being dealt with in the context of an interim order.
It is not appropriate to consider the substantive issues in the application in detail at this time. But to determine whether it is just and equitable to grant interim relief, it can be relevant to briefly consider the issues raised in the application. As an interim order can be considered on an ex parte basis, an adjudicator must be satisfied that the application raises serious legal questions and that the balance of convenience between the parties justifies injunctive relief. That is, an adjudicator must balance the inconvenience of granting relief now if final orders are ultimately refused against the inconvenience of refusing relief now if final orders are ultimately granted. Of particular relevance is evidence that an interim order is necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm.
PABX Telephone System
There are two aspects of the PABX system –the equipment and the telephone service itself. The definition of ‘utility infrastructure’ includes “...cables, wires, pipes, sewers, drains, ducts, plant and equipment by which lots or common property are supplied with utility services.” A ‘utility service’ includes (in part) a telephone service or another system or service designed to improve the amenity or enhance the enjoyment of lots or common property[9]. It would seem then that the PABX equipment is utility infrastructure providing a utility service (the PABX service).
Section 20 of the Act provides that all utility infrastructure contained within the scheme is common property, except in specified circumstances which do not appear to apply here. In general terms section 108(1) of the Accommodation Module requires a body corporate to maintain common property. Therefore, it is arguable that for as long as the PABX equipment is part of common property, the Body Corporate must maintain it. This could potentially include a requirement to upgrade or replace it if it is not functioning properly in its current form.
The first issue in this matter is whether the Body Corporate can resolve to discontinue the PABX service and if so by what type of resolution is required. It is important to note that the provision of the PABX service is separate to the ownership of the PABX equipment. In regard to the equipment itself, my preliminary view is that it is part of common property while it is installed, but that if it was disconnected and detached from the scheme it would become a Body Corporate asset[10]. Therefore, while a Body Corporate can only sell or otherwise dispose of common property by a resolution without dissent[11], an asset can be disposed of by an ordinary resolution if its market value is less than $25,200 (in this scheme), and otherwise a special resolution is required[12].
In regard to the discontinuation of the PABX service, section 118 of the Accommodation Module provides as follows for the supply of utility and other services by the Body Corporate:
118 Supply of services by body corporate—Act, s 158
(1) The body corporate may supply, or engage another person to supply, utility services and other services for the benefit of owners and occupiers of lots, if the services consist of 1 or more of the following—
(a) maintenance services, which may include cleaning, repairing, painting, pest prevention or extermination or mowing;
(b) communication services, which may include the installation and supply of telephone, intercom, computer data or television;
(c) domestic services, which may include electricity, gas, water, garbage removal, airconditioning or heating.
Example—
The body corporate might engage a corporation to supply PABX services for the benefit of the owners and occupiers of lots.
(2) The body corporate may, by agreement with a person for whom services are supplied, charge for the services (including for the installation of, and the maintenance and other operating costs associated with, utility infrastructure for the services), but only to the extent necessary for reimbursing the body corporate for supplying the services.
(3) In acting under subsections (1) and (2), the body corporate must, to the greatest practicable extent, ensure the total cost to the body corporate (other than body corporate administrative costs) for supplying a service, including the cost of a commercial service, and the cost of purchasing, operating, maintaining and replacing any equipment, is recovered from the users of the service.
PABX services are not something that the legislation requires that bodies corporate must provide to owners (regardless of what a body corporate may have committed to providing under a letting agreement), although it could certainly be argued that owners should have a right to be connected either to a PABX or a direct telephone line[13]. Section 118(1) suggests only that this service may be provided by a body corporate. For this reason my preliminary view is that an ordinary resolution at a general meeting would be sufficient to decide to discontinue the PABX service. I do not consider that a Committee resolution would be sufficient, as the decision would affect the rights and privileges of owners[14], but I am not aware of any legislative provision that requires more than an ordinary resolution to discontinue a utility service (as distinct from utility infrastructure).
While an ordinary resolution has been achieved in this case, the next issue is whether the decision was reasonable in the circumstances. Pursuant to section 94(2) of the Act the Body Corporate is required to act reasonably when making or not making decisions in regard to its responsibilities. Factors that may be relevant to consider in determining whether this decision was reasonable would be the impact on owners of discontinuing the PABX service, including any impact on standard telephone services, the loss of communication services between units and with the caretakers, and impacts on elevator maintenance, security and safety. Another issue may be whether caretakers would supply a PABX service, and the potential cost to affected owners of that service. A related issue is whether owners were provided with sufficient information to enable an informed decision to be made. A further issue is the impact of the decision on the Body Corporate’s performance of its obligations under the letting agreement. In this regard I note that I have no jurisdiction to interpret the letting agreement or determine what the Body Corporate’s obligations are under the agreement in regard to the PABX issue. However, if there is evidence that the discontinuation of the PABX service could amount to a breach of the agreement this could be a factor in determining whether the decision was reasonable, or at least whether owners had sufficient information before them to make a decision.
At this stage I have not been advised whether an explanatory note was provided to owners regarding the disputed motion, or what other information was before owners. Moreover, it is not clear that the Committee itself has finalised its own consideration of the impacts of the discontinuation of the PABX. Accordingly, I am of the view that there is a potential issue regarding the reasonableness of the decision which warrants further investigation.
I would also note that, if PABX services are continued to be provided, the Body Corporate should consider how these are provided and how costs are paid for. It seems that the only capacity in the legislation for the Body Corporate to supply PABX services to owners and occupiers is pursuant to section 118. However it is arguable that this section enables individual owners to choose not to receive a service, and this may particularly be relevant to resident owners who may have less use of the service. If the service is only provided to some owners the Body Corporate would arguably need to enter into cost recovery agreements with those lots benefiting from the service.
Voting Papers
The applicant claims that 23 ballot envelopes (for the Committee election) and voting papers (in respect of motions on the agenda) were handed by an owner to the Secretary just before the AGM started. It is not apparent that the Committee disputes that this occurred.
I note that the applicant chaired the meeting in question and so I am unclear why he did not query the votes at the time, rather than simply declaring all voting papers accepted as is recorded in the minutes. However the failure of the applicant to act at the time does not necessarily prevent him raising the issue now.
The applicant is only partially correct in his reference to previous adjudications determining that ballot envelopes and voting papers must be handed to the secretary personally [15]. These adjudications followed a District Court judgement[16] which found, in regard to section 51 of the Standard Module, that the voting papers (unless delivered by post or facsimile) must be delivered “personally” by the voter to the secretary and not by an intermediary. One of the previous adjudications[17] argued that this principle extends to require that, under section 17(7)(e)(iii) of the Standard Module, ballot papers must be given personally to the secretary. I note that the word ‘personally’ does not appear in section 17(7) as it does in section 51, however the Adjudicator in that matter considered that the intention of the legislature was to provide a similar mechanism for the delivery of proxies and ballot papers as for the delivery of votes.
But the issue is not as straightforward in this dispute. This scheme is governed by the Accommodation Module rather than the Standard Module which was considered in the cases cited. Section 49 of the Accommodation Module is identical to section 51 of the Standard Module. So it seems clear that, in regard to voting papers in this scheme, the District Court decision applies equally and voting papers which are not posted or faxed must be personally handed by each voter to the secretary. Accordingly, I agree that there is a serious issue regarding the validity of voting papers which have apparently been given to the Secretary via an intermediary.
However the situation is not necessarily the same with the ballot papers. The Accommodation Module does not provide the same requirements for conducting a ballot as the Standard Module. Section 12 of the Standard Module provides that the ballot for a committee election must be conducted by secret ballot unless the body corporate decides to hold it by open ballot. Section 16 provides for secret ballots and section 17 provides for open ballots. Both sections 16 and 17 provide for ballot-paper envelopes to be given to the secretary. But the Accommodation Module is less prescriptive. Section 13 provides just that (unless otherwise provided) committee elections must be by ballot. Instead of the requirements in section 16 and 17 of the Standard Module, section 17 of the Accommodation Module simply provides that, except to the extent that procedures for ballots are stated in this division, ballots for the election of executive and ordinary members to the committee may be conducted in the way decided by the body corporate by ordinary resolution. Therefore, depending on what (if any) ballot procedures have been approved by the Body Corporate, it may be that there are not any particular requirements applying in this scheme that ballot papers be given personally to the secretary.
Inconvenience from an interim order
In regard to the PABX system I have received no evidence that there is any particular urgency about the disconnection of the PABX. The disconnection is not scheduled until 30 November, which raises doubt over the need for an interim order as it may be that the dispute will be resolved by then. However if the disconnection occurred and it found that the resolution was not reasonable, it may not necessarily be a straightforward matter to reconnect.
In regard to the voting papers, there is a serious issue which potentially affects the validity of voting on all motions. The applicant has sought an interim order that all resolutions at the meeting be put on hold, and ultimately wants the meeting to re-run. As yet, I have no evidence that the result of the motions were in fact altered by any intermediary or that there is any dispute as to the actual result in any of the AGM motions. I have considered whether it might be appropriate to put all motions on hold because of the doubt over the validity of the 23 votes in question. If the motions were put on hold and ultimately the voting papers were found to be valid, there may well be an adverse impact on the Body Corporate. Similarly, if the Body Corporate proceeded to implement the motions, and they were later found to be invalid, adverse impacts may arise.
I am conscious that, largely because of delays by the applicant in regard to his application, it is now nearly three months since the meeting was held and many motions may already have been implemented (including the appointment of the BCM under Motion 8). The dispute regarding the 23 votes would not necessarily have the effect of invalidating the entire meeting, but rather the potential outcome may be just to invalidate the 23 voting papers in question. I note that there are only three motions (9, 10 and 13) were decided (either in the affirmative or negative) by a margin of 23 or less. Moreover, as Motion 13 was lost, Motion 10 and 13 are the only affected motions that could be implemented before the dispute is determined. Accordingly I do not consider that it would be just and equitable to put the Body Corporate to the inconvenience of putting resolutions on hold that would not have been affected by the disputed voting papers.
The final issue is the Committee ballot papers, and the applicant’s request that the new Committee be suspended. I have not been provided with the voting tally and so am not yet aware whether the disputed 23 ballots papers would have affected the voting result. The applicant has not established that the provisions applying to the conduct of ballots in this scheme include a requirement that ballot papers be given personally to the secretary. However there is the potential that further investigation reveals that this is the case. Notwithstanding that, I do not consider that it is appropriate for the Body Corporate to be left without a Committee while a dispute is determined. The alternatives, therefore, are to allow the current Committee to proceed until the final determination is made, or to reinstate the previous Committee until the dispute is resolved.
Conclusion
I am of the view that further investigation is warranted in regard to the reasonableness of the Body Corporate decision regarding Motion 13 at the AGM and that it would be preferable that no action be taken to disconnect the PABX until this has occurred. For that reason, and on the basis that I have no evidence of any particular inconvenience to the Body Corporate from such an order, I propose to make an order that Motion 13 not be implemented pending a final order.
In regard to the voting papers at the AGM I am satisfied that there is a serious question in regard to the validity of 23 voting papers. As Motions 10 and Motions 13 were both passed by a margin of less than 23 votes, I do consider it just and equitable in the circumstances to prevent these resolutions being implemented until this dispute is finally determined. As with Motion 13, I have nothing to indicate any significant inconvenience to the Body Corporate from placing the implementation of Motion 10 on hold.
In regard to the Committee election, I have not yet been provided with strong evidence of any irregularity with the handling of the ballot papers. In the absence of any specific issues with the current functioning of the Committee[18], I am not satisfied that there is sufficient basis to disrupt the functioning of the Body Corporate by changing the current Committee for the comparatively short period of time until a final determination is reached. I do not consider that reinstating for a short time the previous Committee, which may even include persons who no longer wish to serve on the Committee, will benefit owners or assist the functioning of the Body Corporate.
Effect of an Interim Order
The matter will now be investigated in accordance with the usual processes undertaken by this Office. In the first instance I intend to refer the application back to the Commissioner with a recommendation that conciliation be conducted in regard to the dispute. Conciliation is a normal requirement of most dispute lodged with the Commissioner’s Office. Moreover, I am of the view that there is clear potential for conciliation with trained conciliators to assist in resolving the issues in dispute. In regard to the issues and options for the PABX issue, I would suggest that it is appropriate that Johjen be including in the conciliation.
If conciliation is unable to resolve the dispute, the matter will proceed to the investigation of a final order, including calling of further submissions from all affected parties.
All parties should note the provisions of section 279(2) of the Act, which provides that:
(2) An interim order—
(a) has effect for a period (not longer than 1 year) stated in the order; and
(b) may be extended, varied, renewed or cancelled by the adjudicator until a final order is made; and
(c) may be cancelled by a later order made by the adjudicator; and
(d) if it does not lapse or is not cancelled earlier, lapses when—
(i) the application is withdrawn; or
(ii) the commissioner gives the person who made the application a written notice under section 241 rejecting the application; or
(iii) a final order is made by an adjudicator to whom the application is referred.
I have provided that this interim order has 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 Office will not automatically renew an interim order and the order will automatically lapse upon a final order being made or this application being withdrawn.
[1] Section
247(3) of the Act
[2] Sattel &
Ors v The Proprietors Be Bee’s Tropical Apartments Building
[2001] QCA 560
[3] Reference
0494-2001 - Sani Villa [2002] QBCCMCmr 334 (27 May 2002); Reference
0659-2001 - Petrie Mansions [2001] QBCCMCmr 611 (5 December
2001)
[4] See
sections 227, 228, 276 and Schedule 5 of the
Act
[5] Section
276(2) of the
Act
[6] Section
284(1) of the
Act
[7] Section
279 of the Act
[8] Section
276 of the Act
[9] As defined in
the Dictionary in Schedule 6 of the
Act
[10] See
sections 11, 35 and 36 of the
Act
[11] Section
110(2)(a)(i) of the Accommodation Module
[12] Section
116(c) of the Accommodation Module; note the statement of reasons in
Bayview Shores [2007] QBCCMCmr 548 (13 September 2007) for a more
detailed discussion on the necessary approval to remove and dispose of utility
infrastructure and
assets.
[13] See
Adjudicator CG Young in Noosa Place II [2003] QBCCMCmr 341 (22 January
2003)
[14]
Section 26(1)(b) of the Accommodation Module regarding restricted issues
for the Committee
[15] Sani
Villa [2002] QBCCMCmr 334; Petrie Mansions [2001] QBCCMCmr
611
[16] Robin DCJ
in Body Corporate for Surfers Waters CTS 20377 v Angland [2000]
QDC 34 (10 March
2000)
[17] Hanly P
in Petrie Mansions [2001]
[18] I note that the elected Chair resigned in July however sections 23A to 23E of the Accommodation Module provide for the filling of casual vacancies on the committee.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2008/299.html