25 Queens Road [2010] QBCCMCmr 48 (8 February 2010)

Last Updated: 23 March 2010

REFERENCE: 0666-2009

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 9 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	21874
Name of Scheme:	25 Queens Road
Address of Scheme:	23 Queens Road Scarness QLD 4655

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

J.A.S.T Pty Ltd, the Owner(s) of lot 1

I hereby order that the application is dismissed.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0666-2009

“25 Queens Road” CTS 21874

Application

25 Queens Road Community Titles Scheme (Queens) is a 6 lot scheme under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Act) and the Act’s Standard Module Regulation (Standard Module).

This application is by J.A.S.T Pty Ltd (applicant) seeking orders against the body corporate for Queens (respondent). The applicant is seeking an order to excuse the applicant from contributing to any contributions used to fund the body corporate’s defence of a lot entitlement adjustment application lodged by the applicant.

Decision

The legislation requires that contributions levied on owners be proportionate to the contribution schedule lot entitlement of each lot except where the legislation provides otherwise (Standard Module, 141(5)).

I am satisfied from the applicants’ submissions that the engagement of Milburn Guttridge Lawyers and Hoverley Surveyors by the body corporate did not provide any personal benefit to the applicant and only benefited the other four owners. However, the applicant has not provided any legal basis upon which it is possible to excuse the applicant from contributing to the body corporate’s expenses in this respect.

If a body corporate engages in a legitimate expense then all owners need to contribute to the payment of the expense even if only some owners receive the benefit. Sharing of contributions according to lot entitlements appears to be designed to provide for an appropriate sharing of expenditure but obviously does not allow every expense of the body corporate to be allocated based on the extent to which an individual owner has benefited. For example, an owner cannot avoid contributing to the cost of pool maintenance simply because they do not like to swim and therefore do not gain any benefit from maintenance of the pool.

Even if the body corporate entered into an engagement that was not properly authorised by owners then the body corporate may still be obliged to pay for the services received (Act, 310). In such a situation all owners will still be required to contribute proportionally according to their lot entitlements. However, there is potential that an owner could take action to recover their losses from an individual responsible for any wrongful engagement or expenditure.

The application lacks any legal grounds upon which the order sought is justified. The application should be dismissed on this basis (Act, 270(1)(c)).

Order

For these reasons, the application is dismissed.