Imboon Place [2009] QBCCMCmr 368 (29 September 2009)

Last Updated: 9 October 2009

REFERENCE: 0886-2009

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 9 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	39177
Name of Scheme:	Imboon Place
Address of Scheme:	9-11 Imboon Place DECEPTION BAY QLD 4508

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

Magnum Research Pty Ltd, the Owner(s) of lots 4 and 5

I hereby order that the application for interim and final orders is dismissed.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0886-2009

“Imboon Place” CTS 39177

Application

Imboon Place Community Titles Scheme (Imboon) is a 5 lot scheme under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Act) and the Act’s Commercial Module Regulation (Commercial Module).

This application is by Magnum Research Pty Ltd, owner of lots 4 and 5 (applicant) seeking orders against the body corporate for Imboon (respondent).

Submissions on behalf of the applicant were to the effect that the applicant reached an understanding with the developer that the front two lots, lots 5 and 4, would be allocated unit numbers 1 and 2 respectively. However, it is submitted that the developer failed to do this. Further, it is submitted that the owners of lot 2 entered into a lease for “unit 2” but no unit numbers had been allocated. It was also submitted that the Moreton Bay Regional Council follows the Australian Standards for Street Numbering that would require the smallest unit number to be the first unit as you enter the complex from the road. Also, that the body corporate insurer had indicated that the body corporate may not be covered by insurance if it voted against the Australian Standards for Street Numbering and this resulted in liability. For example, it was suggested the body corporate would not be covered by insurance if liability resulted from emergency services being unable to locate the correct unit due to the numbering not being in accordance with Australian Standards.

A response on behalf of the other owners was to the effect that the owner of lots 1 and 2 had called an extraordinary general meeting to reduce confusion by altering the number of the units back to the original numbering. It is submitted that the application does not contain any legal grounds to support it.

Decision

Having reviewed the submissions, I have concluded that the applicant has failed to raise any legal basis for stopping owners from voting to change the unit numbers to coincide with the lot numbers.

Firstly, any failure by the developer to allocate unit numbers as agreed with the applicant does not provide a legal basis to stop owners from subsequently voting themselves to allocate unit numbers. The applicant may have a legal remedy against the developer but does not have any legal rights against the body corporate.

Secondly, I conducted an internet search and could not find any Australian Standard for Street Numbering. In any event, I note that Australian Standards are not mandatory unless referenced in Federal or State legislation.[1] The applicant has failed to provide a copy of the alleged standard or raise any legal basis that would require the body corporate to follow that standard.

Thirdly, the example of potential loss of insurance coverage if units are numbered from 5 to 1 instead of 1 to 5 appears farfetched. If the units are clearly numbered in sequence it is difficult to imagine the numbering contributing to such a scenario, particularly in a five lot scheme. I spoke to Mark from the Queensland office of CHU. Mark informed me that he recalled having a brief discussion with the body corporate manager about this issue. However, Mark informed me that he certainly did not say the body corporate would lose insurance cover if it renumbered its units. Mark said that it is irrelevant to CHU whether the units are numbered 1 to 5 or 5 to 1 provided the body corporate has lawfully adopted that numbering.

In all the circumstances, the applicant has failed to raise any legal basis for preventing owners from voting to allocate unit numbers that correspond with lot numbers. The application for interim and final orders will be dismissed on the basis that it is misconceived and without substance (Act, 270(1)(c)).

Order

The application for both interim and final orders is dismissed on the basis it is misconceived and without substance (Act, 270(1)(c)).

---

[1] http://www.standards.org.au/cat.asp?catid=7, 28 September 2009.