|11 Joseph Street
|We were wholly successful in an adjudication application against the other lot owner in a two-lot scheme. The other lot owner’s personal company had been acting as body corporate manager for the scheme for a number of years, and our client had been subject to a number of adverse actions. The adjudicator agreed that the other lot owner had not followed legislated procedures and a number of non-compliances were found.
|We successfully defended an adjudication application where a lot owner sought to invalidate a motion which approved a large amount of expenditure to repair and renovate the pool and atrium area at the resort. It was ordered that the motion was valid, save for one minor phrase, and the relevant special levy was able to be struck and the project was able to proceed.
|We successfully defended an adjudication application by a lot owner that sought to stop the body corporate’s balcony balustrade replacement project. The adjudicator found that the Body Corporate had a duty to maintain the balustrades and that the balustrades were so old they represented a safety risk and had to be replaced. We also successfully argued for a finding that the Body Corporate be awarded the maximum possible costs amount on the basis that the application was misconceived and without substance.
|We successfully defended an application by a lot owner who sought to increase the temperature of the pool and spa. The adjudicator dismissed the application in its entirety and found that it was misconceived and without substance.
|We successfully argued in an adjudication application that the owners of a lot must remove the caravan parked on that lot. The caravan was of such a size that its storage on the lot was such that it contravened a by-law requiring vehicles stored not to be visible from any other lot.
|Body corporate manager
|We acted for a body corporate manager whose engagement as manager was attacked by a lot owner.
|Dakota at 88 Macquarie Street
|We resisted an application seeking orders about the circulation of information by the body corporate and also achieved a costs order of $2,000 against the applicant for the application being misconceived and without substance.
|We resisted an interim order sought by a lot owners about the termination of a management rights agreement.
|We successfully argued that 14 votes against our client’s motion were cast unreasonably. We were involved in setting the strategy from the start and we wrote about it here.
|A body corporate deducted what it argued were services it had to provide from our clients caretaking remuneration. We achieved an order that the deduction was unlawful and our client obtained a full refund.
|We successfully defended an application from a caretaker that the Body Corporate had acted unreasonably by failing to pass a motion that would have extended the management rights agreements at the Scheme. The Applicant also argued that the committee distributed material to owners that caused them to vote against the motion. The Application was dismissed in its entirety.
|La Porte D’or
|We successfully acted for a lot owner whose sole dissenting vote on a resolution without dissent (as opposed to the 87 others in favour) was held to be cast reasonably.
|We acted for a body corporate defending an application by a real estate agent who also owned a lot in the scheme. The agent was arguing about the exclusivity of the resident manager’s letting rights in the by-laws. The body corporate was supportive of those rights and we were successful in having the application dismissed.
|We acted for the body corporate in defending an application by a lot owner over the erection of a fence. The fence was a very contentious in the local community and opinions were divided. The adjudicator dismissed the application in its entirety and concluded that the decision to erect the fence was not objectively unreasonable. This case is an important one because it confirms in no uncertain terms that defects in minor procedural issues will not usually be enough to overturn a body corporate’s decision.
|Magnetic International Resort Hotel
|We were successful in obtaining an interim order preventing a body corporate from acting on a motion to terminate management rights agreements where 21 days notice had not been given of the meeting to owners.
|We acted for the body corporate responding to allegations about unlawful insurance arrangements and issues relating to the remuneration of the strata manager.
|We successfully achieved an order that a lot owner, who had installed an improvement which encroached on common property, must remove the encroachment. We further successfully argued that the Body Corporate’s refusal of an application by a lot owner to have exclusive use of the area of common property the subject of the encroachment was reasonable.
|We successfully defended a wide-ranging application by a caretaker to seek its reappointment as well as allege that the Body Corporate failed to properly maintain, administer, manage or control the common property.
|Moroccan – View Tower
|We acted for a body corporate who were successful in arguing that payment of consideration to owners for entry into a management rights agreement was unlawful. This was overturned on appeal.
|We successfully obtained a declaration that the annual general meeting of the Body Corporate could be held outside the time prescribed in the legislation in circumstances where the Body Corporate was negotiating with the caretaker regarding suggested amendments to the caretaking agreement. The adjudicator allowed the meeting to be held out of time so that the motion to vary the caretaking agreement could be considered at the AGM instead of at a separate EGM.
|No 9 Port Douglas Road
|We successfully defended an appeal by a caretaker who argued that the Body Corporate was complicit in the caretaker suffering loss as a result of various breaches of its caretaking agreement (including a failure to maintain a current letting licence). The appeal was dismissed with costs on the basis that the Body Corporate acted reasonably and had no part in the loss suffered by the caretaker.
|Noosa Lakes Resort
|Resident Manager / Lot owner
|We successfully argued, in a wide-ranging adjudication application, that a number of voting papers at a general meeting were invalid, this in turn meant that a motion approving a large amount of legal expenditure was invalid. The corollary was that the committee motion purportedly approving the expenditure was also invalid as the Body Corporate’s spending limit was exceeded.
|One Bright Point
|In this case, the applicant lot owner sought an order that the Body Corporate pay approximately $15,000 for repairs that the lot sustained due to water ingress during Cyclone Ita. The adjudicator found that damage sustained to the balcony and sliding doors were the applicant’s responsibility (and not that of the Body Corporate) because they were located entirely within the boundaries of the lot. The adjudicator only ordered that the Body Corporate contribute toward the cost of repairing damaged ceiling panels in the beach room.
|We successfully defended an interim order application by a majority lot owner who tried to obtain orders that the Body Corporate Committee be restrained from approving the transfer of management rights. The interim orders were dismissed and the Body Corporate was able to proceed with considering the assignment.
|We achieved a first – an order that a body corporate had acted unreasonably in imposing conditions on an assignment.
|We achieved an order that a body corporate conditioning an approval of an assignment to seek payments for non caretaking services was unlawful. Our client was granted a $13,200 refund.
|We successfully obtained interim orders that the Body Corporate not implement a motion passed at an EGM regarding a caretaking agreement that required the Body Corporate to maintain common property outside the scheme land. The agreement also contained other unreasonable clauses. The adjudicator held that, amongst other things, the decision to enter the agreement was unreasonable and meant that the Body Corporate was ‘contracting outside the BCCM Act.’ It is important to know that in this case, the decision was passed because the original owner held powers of attorney for many lots in the Scheme.
|Riviera Southbank Apartments
|We successfully applied or an urgent order of an Adjudicator to approve spending above the Committee’s spending limit to upgrade fire systems to comply with legislation, in circumstances where the spending was of an urgent nature.
|We obtained orders resisting the alleged changes made to the committee at a general meeting.
|A very satisfying win where a body corporate committee tried all sorts of tricks to prevent our clients from keeping their pet galah (Joe the Galah) in their lot.
|A minority group of owners
|We prevented a majority lot owner from voting through matters at general meeting to allow the development on the adjoining site (owned by the majority owner) which affected the body corporate.
|We achieved an order allowing $1 million of urgent spending in less than 24 hours notice after the 2011 Brisbane floods.
|The Mediterranean Towers
|We acted for a building manager defending issues of alleged invalidity with their letting agreement and also the results of a motion to vary their agreements. We were successful on both counts.
|The Moroccan – View Tower
|We acted for the body corporate (via a lot owner member of the committee) who successfully overturned the decision to enter into a letting agreement because of the unlawful conduct of the manager in offering a financial inducement to owners to support it.
|The Point Coolum Beach
|We successfully defended an adjudication brought by a lot owner in relation to the liability to pay an insurance excess related to an insurance claim on the body corporate’s insurance for an incident which affected only one lot. It was held that the Body Corporate’s requirement for that lot owner to pay the excess was reasonable in the circumstances.
|The Rocks Resort
|We successfully argued that a lot owner should be granted access to documents that the Body Corporate claimed privileged. The adjudicator held that the Body Corporate bore the onus to prove that the documents requested were subject to legal professional privilege and we successfully argued that it failed to do so.
|We successfully defended an Application lodged by a lot owner alleging the Resident Manager was committing a fraud on the minority. In this case the Resident Manager owned a majority of the lots and was able to succeed in or knock down any motion put to general meeting. The Application was dismissed in its entirety.
|We acted for the committee under attack from a lot owner alleging numerous things. Costs were nearly awarded against the lot owner, which is rare to even threaten in this jurisdiction.
|We successfully defended an application from a lot owner that the Body Corporate’s measures to stop water entering the building were indeed reasonable. The Applicant argued that the mitigation measures devalued their lot. The Adjudicator instead found that the Body Corporate had acted reasonably to maintain the common property and prevent water ingress to the building.
|We acted for a lot owner and successfully overturned votes from other lot owners against our client’s resolution without dissent at general meeting.