Admiralty Towers [2015] QBCCMCmr 70 (19 February 2015)

Last Updated: 2 March 2015

ADJUDICATOR’S ORDER

Office of the Commissioner

for Body Corporate and Community Management

ORDERS MADE:

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview

[1] This application relates to the scheme’s management rights. The Body Corporate entered into Letting and Caretaking Agreements (the agreements) in 2001. These were subsequently assigned to Collberry Pty Ltd (Collberry). On 1 July 2014 Collberry sought consent to assign the management rights to MC Aurora Property Pty Ltd.

[2] The applicant gave the Committee a report in January 2014 asserting ‘potential’ breaches of the agreements on seven issues, and recommended action on those issues. The Committee responded to each issue a few days later, explaining some actions and indicating other steps that were being taken. The applicant was apparently dissatisfied with the response but did not appear to take any further action.

[3] Following Collberry’s request to assign the agreements, the applicant sought an interim order to prevent the assignment of the agreements. This request was dismissed on the basis that the adjudicator was not satisfied there was a serious legal issue relating to proposed assignment. The Committee consented to transfer of the agreements on 31 October 2014.

[4] The applicant seeks final orders determining that the Body Corporate failed to act reasonably by wrongfully reimbursing Collberry under the agreements, and failing to hold Collberry accountable to perform obligations under the agreements. The issue to determine at this time is whether the Body Corporate has failed to act reasonably in regard to enforcing the terms of, and obligations under, the agreements.

Preliminaries

[5] Admiralty Towers community titles scheme 16440 (Admiralty Towers) consists of 151 lots and common property. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as Survey Plan 205853.

[6] This application was lodged under the Act on 4 August 2014. On 25 August 2014 the application for interim orders was dismissed.[1] The final orders sought by the applicant are as follows:

An order that the Body Corporate has acted against its obligation to act reasonably in all matters under the legislation, specifically S94 and 152(1)(a) by-

(a) Its wrongful authorisation of expenditure in reimbursement to the caretaker in respect of amounts paid/reimbursed that are in contravention to the Caretaker in conditions of the Caretaking Agreement covering matters that are the Caretaker's cost responsibility and not that of the Body Corporate;

(b) Failing to hold the Caretaker accountable to perform obligations under the Caretaking Agreement as detailed within the application.

Jurisdiction

[7] An adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances to resolve a dispute, in the context of a community titles scheme, about a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the CMS, or the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or the CMS.[2] An order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting, in a way stated. An order may contain ancillary and consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate.[3]

[8] There is a question as to whether all aspects of this dispute falls within my jurisdiction under the legislative dispute resolution provisions.[4] While a department adjudicator can determine whether a body corporate has acted reasonably, I cannot determine a claimed or anticipated ‘contractual matter’ pertaining to a caretaking or letting agreement.

[9] A contractual matter is defined in Chapter 6 and includes disputes about the contravention of the contractual terms, exercise of rights or powers under the contractual terms, or the performance of duties under the contract. These matters are reserved for determination by a specialist adjudicator or the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). Accordingly, in deciding this dispute I consider that I am unable to make a determination on whether there has been a breach of the terms of the agreements

Procedural matters

[10] Before making the interim order, the adjudicator invited and received submissions from the Committee and Collberry.

[11] Following the dismissal of the interim order, the adjudicator referred the application back to the Commissioner with a recommendation that conciliation be conducted in respect of the dispute. The matter was then referred for conciliation[5] and a conciliation session was held on 16 September. The parties reached an agreement at conciliation. Unfortunately it appears that this agreement did not resolve all matters in dispute and the applicant advised on 30 October that he wished to proceed with the final order application.

[12] The Commissioner then invited submissions on the final order application from the Committee, affected party and all owners.[6] Submissions were made by the Committee, Collberry and four owners. The applicant inspected and responded to the submissions received.[7]

[13] A dispute resolution recommendation[8] was made referring the file to department adjudication.

[14] I then investigated the dispute[9], which included reviewing the application and submissions.

[15] I note the applicant has made comments about the conciliation. Under section 252E(5) of the Act, evidence of anything said or done about a dispute in a departmental conciliation session is inadmissible in a proceeding. Accordingly I have not had regard to those comments.

Submissions

[16] The interim and final submissions from the Committee oppose the application, disputing that it has failed to be accountable or act in the interests of owners. It notes that the applicant’s report was not an independent audit report, and the independent audit report raised no concerns with the financial accounts. It details its actions as agreed at conciliation and questions why the applicant continues to dispute this matter. It provides details of all the expenses paid by Collberry which the Body Corporate reimbursed and the process for approving these, and disputes the applicant’s remaining objections.

[17] The submission from Collberry opposes the application. It says the applicant’s ‘report’ is full of inaccuracies and the Committee took no remedial action as a result of it because they were not warranted. Comments are made on the individual issues raised by the applicant.

[18] Three submissions from owners support the application, with detailed comments about the specific issues which I have noted. One owner opposes the application, and expressed support for the Committee.

[19] The applicant’s lengthy reply to submissions includes the following comments:

1. He has almost 50 years experience as an accountant and has meticulously undertaking the forensic research articulated in the application.
2. The caretaker ‘calls the shots’ at Admiralty Towers, with the Committee acquiescing in its demands and owners who speak out denigrated.

100. There has been a deterioration of good governance and a lack of scrutiny.

4. The Committee has failed to meet its obligations under the conciliation agreement.
5. The Committee seeks to base its decisions on what its members believe is a reasonable course of action, ignoring the specific terms of the caretaking agreement.
6. The agreement specifies that the caretaking duties must be carried out at the expense of the caretaker unless the agreement says they are a Body Corporate cost. The Committee agreed at conciliation to apply that, but has been ignoring it.
7. Contractual breaches have been brought to the attention of the Committee. While it may have retained its rights against Collberry, it is questionable whether it could recover any remediation.
8. The Committee has been unprepared to hold the caretaker accountable where there is clear evidence of wrong doing.
9. Given the acceptance of irregularities, it is surprising that the external auditors gave an unqualified report. He has lodged a formal complaint against the auditor.
10. There are concerns about information circulated to owners about the dispute.

Analysis

[20] The issue in this matter is whether the Body Corporate has failed to act reasonably in regard to complying with and enforcing the terms of the agreements. In considering this matter I will look at the obligation to act reasonably, discuss the basis of the dispute, and then consider the actions of the Body Corporate and the specific issues raised by the applicant.

[21] I reiterate that it is not my role to determine whether Collberry breached the agreements or whether the Body Corporate has made payments to Collberry that were not permitted under the agreements. Any dispute about whether the terms of the agreements have been complied with or the obligations under the agreements have been performed is a contractual matter between the parties to the contract, and that is beyond my jurisdiction to determine. However, evidence of breaches or non-performance may be considered in determining whether the Body Corporate acted reasonably.[10]

[22] I would also note that the conciliation agreement is a good-will agreement and is not enforceable. As such, claims that the Committee has not complied with the agreement (which are not necessarily substantiated in any event) are of limited relevance to this dispute.

Obligation to act reasonably

[23] A body corporate must act reasonably in undertaking its general functions, including in making or not making a decision.[11] The functions of the body corporate include administering the common property and assets, enforcing the CMS, and carrying out other functions given to it under the Act and CMS. A committee must similarly act reasonable in making a decision.[12]

[24] The question of whether the body corporate has acted reasonably is not a simple one and there is no mechanical test or formula to be applied. The issue is not whether an action or decision (or absence of action or a decision) was ‘correct’ or ‘preferable’ but whether it is objectively reasonable.[13] What is reasonable is a question of fact, based upon all relevant matters in the circumstances of each case.

[25] A recent QCAT decision[14] explored the question of ‘reasonableness’ in detail. Tribunal Member Mr Roney QC reviewed the various approaches to, and applications of, the test of reasonableness in a number of different decisions before setting out what he considered is the proper approach.[15] He concluded that if any known reasons for a decision can be accepted as reasonable, even if there are a number which are unreasonable, the conduct of the body corporate will nevertheless be reasonable.

Basis for the dispute

[26] In the current application the applicant is not seeking to challenge or overturn a specific decision, or the failure to make a specific decision. Rather he is disputing the general conduct of the Body Corporate through its committee in compliance with the agreements.

[27] At this point I must note my concerns with the conduct of the applicant in identifying a dispute. The applicant wrote to the Committee on 10 January and the Committee responded on 14 January, noting that it had taken the matter seriously. The applicant complains that the response gave no offer or opportunity to discuss the matter further. However the applicant’s letter had not asked for a discussion and there is no indication that the applicant subsequently sought to discuss the matter further.

[28] The applicant says the Committee’s letter did not adequately address his issues, but he apparently did not reply saying that he was not satisfied with the response or substantiating his ongoing concerns. It seems to me to have been entirely logical for the Committee to have genuinely believed its response had addressed the matter. The Committee apparently heard nothing further until the applicant lodged this application nearly seven months later.

[29] On that basis alone it could be fairly argued the applicant has not made a reasonable attempt to resolve the issue before lodging the application, such that there is no genuine dispute.[16]

[30] The applicant’s letter to the Committee did not state that he believed the agreements had been breached, but that there were potential contraventions. The letter ‘recommended’ that the Committee obtain further information from Collberry; recover costs on one matter; change the process for authorising expenditure; and obtain legal advice. The response commented on each issue and outlined steps being taken. The applicant gives little clear detail as to why he believes the response was inadequate or incorrect. He does not explain why he believes the Committee had a legal obligation to undertake the specific steps recommended in his letter. Moreover, he did not suggest the Committee take formal remedial action against Collberry.

[31] If a body corporate believes that a caretaker had not complied with the terms of their contract, and was unable to resolve that informally, the legislation provides a formal process.[17] The first formal step is for the body corporate to give the caretaker a ‘remedial action notice’ being a written notice stating that the body corporate believed the person failed to carry out required duties or otherwise acted in a manner specified in the section.[18] The notice must identify the issue and give at least 14 days to remedy the issue. If the body corporate has given a remedial action notice, and the person fails to comply in the notice period, the body corporate can pass an ordinary resolution approving the termination of the agreement.

[32] The applicant did not ask the Committee to give Collberry a remedial action notice in regard to any of his concerns and he did not submit a motion to a general meeting proposing that a remedial action notice be issued. He also did not submit a motion to a general meeting that the Body Corporate seek reimbursement of the disputed amounts, or that any other action be taken in respect of this dispute. When the application was lodged the applicant said there was no time to lodge a motion because the next annual general meeting wasn’t until 2015. However that doesn’t explain why, if the applicant felt the Committee was not acting appropriately in January 2014, he did not submit motions for the annual general meeting in June 2014 or in the event that an extraordinary general meeting was called. As the primary decision-making forum for the Body Corporate, this matter should have been put to a general meeting.

[33] Arguably the only notice that the Committee had of an alleged issue or irregularity in the compliance with and enforcement of the agreements was the applicant’s letter of 10 January. Therefore it seems that the issue in essence here is whether the response of the Committee to that letter (including any subsequent action or lack of action) was reasonable in the circumstances.

[34] As noted above, that does not mean its response needed to be correct, or the best or preferable response. Rather, the issue is whether there was some rational justification for the Committee’s approach which would render it ‘reasonable’. That said, arguably conduct which amounts to a substantive statutory or contractual breach would not be reasonable.

[35] I will consider the seven issues raised by the applicant.

Supply of services to the body corporate

[36] The applicant says Collberry has acted as an intermediary supplier of services to the Body Corporate. He refers to invoices paid by the Body Corporate to Collberry for services obtained from a third party. He argues there are invoices from the original supplier, which would substantiate the charges as a legitimate Body Corporate cost and there has been no mark-up.

[37] The applicant asked for supporting documentation. The Committee responded by saying that the amounts were paid on receipt of an invoice from Collberry. It explained the basis of some charges notes and said it was satisfied there was no mark-up. In the application, the applicant maintains that the caretaker should provide original invoices and that invoices should note the exclusion clause under the agreements to show that they are a legitimate expense. The applicant also argues the caretaker should refund invalid payments.

[38] The Committee submission explains the process of approving invoices, and that invoices are approved for payment only when satisfied it is clearly a Body Corporate expense. It says this process has been scrutinised by the external auditor. The submission also explains each of the invoices referred to by the applicant.

[39] Collberry says the caretaking agreement and the legislation do not precluded it from providing services in addition to the caretaker’s duties. It further says that its invoices always included any original supplier invoice when it was sent to the treasurer.

[40] The conciliation agreement reached by the parties agreed to a committee member reviewing certain disputed invoices, maintaining records of ‘underlying’ invoices provided by the caretaker, and noting contractual exclusions on invoices. The applicant says he has not been given the ‘underlying’ invoices and continues to maintain, at least in regard to some matters, that reimbursement was paid on costs that should have been met by the caretaker.

[41] I will start by noting that there is nothing in the legislation, and appears to be nothing in the agreements, that prevent the Body Corporate from using an intermediary to source supplies and services for it, or from engaging the caretaker to provide services beyond those specified in the caretaking agreement. It simply needs appropriate authorisation of the spending.

[42] The legislation sets out the requirements for the authorisation of spending.[19] The Standard Module then requires that payments from the administrative or sinking fund may be paid on receipt of a written request for payment or written evidence of payment such as a receipt.[20] There does not appear to be any reason why the provision of an invoice from the caretaker, rather than an original supplier, would not technically satisfy the legislative requirements.

[43] If there was any uncertainty about whether the amounts claimed by the caretaker were validly a Body Corporate expense or was for something that had been authorised, it would certainly be preferable for the Committee to seek more information original invoices or receipts. In this case the Committee was satisfied that the payments were legitimate, and Collberry says that it supplied the underlying invoices in any event.

[44] The question for me is not whether each and every invoice was a Body Corporate expense but whether the Body Corporate acted reasonably. The onus of proof in this case rests with the applicant. Therefore it is for the applicant to prove that a particular payment was not valid or that it was not reasonable for the Committee to believe that the invoice was for legitimate Body Corporate expenses.

[45] However the applicant appears to rely on speculation as to what might have happened, and his personal opinion as to whether a certain function should be undertaken by the caretaker. There is no objective substantiation of the claims. I note that the absence of an original supplier invoice is not of itself evidence that expenses were not validly paid. If anything, it appears the primary issue here may have been a failure to retain records (that is, the original invoices given to it), rather than any failure to comply with the agreements.

[46] I am simply not satisfied that the applicant had presented such clear evidence of incorrect payments to conclude that it was unreasonable for the Body Corporate not to take action to seek reimbursement of payments made. Although it is possible that some of the payments could have been interpreted as costs that were a caretaker responsibility, the applicant has not substantiated that it was unreasonable for the Committee to conclude otherwise.

QFRS infringement notices

[47] In August 2013 the Body Corporate paid two infringement notices (totalling $2,500) from the Queensland Fire and Rescue Services (QFRS), for failing to keep records and comply with a notice. The applicant argues the Body Corporate should not bear the cost of the caretaker failing to meet its obligations. He refers to the contractual provisions, including the requirement to maintain fire fighting equipment and systems and report and action hazards in the complex.

[48] The committee says the infringement notices were not the fault of the caretaker as records had been kept, but the format was not deemed to be acceptable by QFRS. Collberry notes the Body Corporate had engaged a specialist fire service contractor, Firevac, who implemented a system of keeping fire safety records electronically. The Committee and Collberry assumed, because of Firevac’s expertise, that this electronic records system complied with the regulations. QFRS determined otherwise.

[49] At conciliation the parties agreed that the Committee would investigate whether Firevac could be pursued for the infringement notice fines. The Committee submission says this may be possible but it believes the company is no longer in operation. The applicant maintains the charges are the responsibility of the caretaker if they cannot be recovered from the contractor.

[50] It is not apparent to me why the caretaker should be responsible for the QFRS invoices. The caretaker’s duties are listed in the agreement schedule. The duties include inspecting and monitoring that fire service equipment is operating and serviced in accordance with government requirements, preparing ‘appropriate’ schedules and records, and reporting to the Body Corporate on the equipment. However the duties do not specify that the caretaker will be responsible for the obligations of the Body Corporate under fire safety legislation.

[51] There is no suggestion that Collberry did not maintain the fire service equipment or failed to tell the Body Corporate about a problem with the maintenance of the equipment. The Body Corporate and Collberry assert, and the applicant does not refute, that the infringement notices were given in relation to record-keeping. The responsibility for maintaining Body Corporate records rests with the Body Corporate.[21] The Body Corporate cannot contract out of its obligation to maintain the records, even if it engages someone to assist it in that regard.[22]

[52] It appears the Body Corporate received poor advice from its specialist contractor in regard to the handing of fire safety records. If the Body Corporate can recover the charges incurred as a result of that poor advice well and good. However the applicant has not satisfied me that the caretaker failed to perform its duties such that it could have any liability for the QFRS charges.

Locksmith invoice

[53] The next issue is an invoice paid in January 2013 for the replacement of the building’s master keys which had been lent to a lot owner but not returned. The applicant argues that, failing reimbursement from the owner, the caretaker was responsible for the cost because Clause 8.1 of the schedule to the caretaking agreement requires the caretaker to keep keys and security devices safe and not give access to them without authorisation.

[54] The Committee responded by advising that master keys were lost by a contractor and the contractor’s insurance has reimbursed the cost. The applicant says he has asked for confirmation of the reimbursement, but provides no evidence of any such request. The Committee submission says the applicant has been given confirmation of that, and the conciliation agreement noted that the matter was resolved.

[55] There is no basis to suggest that this issue is, or ever was, at all related to the performance of the caretaking agreement and there is noting to suggest that the Committee has not acted reasonably in regard to this matter.

Security access devices

[56] The applicant says that By-law 31(b) requires the Body Corporate to maintain a register of keys and authorises it to charge a security deposit for keys. The applicant claims the caretaker is responsible for maintaining this register under clause 5.1(d) of the schedule to the caretaking agreement which states that the caretaker shall “maintain a record of information in respect of Owners and occupiers of the Complex as reasonably required by the Body Corporate in the interests of enhancing security and order in the Complex and the enforcement of the by-laws”. Also, clause 8.2 provides for the caretaker to buy fobs at the Body Corporate’s expense and forward monies received (presumably the deposits) to the Body Corporate less an amount reasonably required as a float.

[57] The applicant argues that Collberry has collected deposits for fobs but failed to account to the Body Corporate for the proceeds of fob deposits. He asked the Committee to require the caretaker to provide information on fob transactions.

[58] In response the Committee said that all fobs had been accounted for but the fob deposits had been retained in the caretaker’s trust account. It said this would be rectified with the funds transferred to the Body Corporate bank account. At the conciliation there was acknowledgment that the correct procedures had not been followed and the Body Corporate undertook to address that. The applicant maintained that there was no accounting.

[59] The Committee submissions say the caretaker keeps a record of all fobs issued, and that a suitable arrangement is now in place for fob deposits. Collberry says that all the proceeds from fobs were accounted to the Body Corporate at all times.

[60] It would seem that for a period at least, fob deposits were retained in the caretaker’s trust account rather than being transferred to the Body Corporate. On being alerted to this discrepancy, the Committee undertook to rectify it. The applicant claims this did not occur, with no funds accounted to the Body Corporate and no information has been given to him.

[61] I find the applicants submissions on this issue to be particularly confusing. I note that the body corporate manager confirmed in writing on 18 November 2014 that the fob deposit ledger had been reconciled and that all amounts due had been received. In January 2015 she provided the applicant further information about funds deposited, with copies of bank statements. The applicant’s reply to submissions comments on numerous issues, but the amounts and references he gives are quite unclear. I am at a loss to understand his ongoing objections. If he maintains there has been incorrect accounting of the amounts, he does not clearly explain the basis for his assertion of an error, or the evidence on which he relies.

[62] I do not consider that an obligation to act reasonably means never making an error. If a body corporate is alerted to a legislative or contractual compliance issue, it would arguably be unreasonable not to rectify that error. The Body Corporate acknowledged an error with the handling of fob deposits, and has said it has taken steps to rectify this error. It is possible that this rectification could have occurred more quickly, but one must acknowledge that this is a volunteer committee who was clearly dealing with a number of significant matters at the time. I am also not convinced that this was a significant error in that there is no suggestion that the deposits were being retained personally by the caretaker – rather they were clearly being held in a trust account. In any event, I am not satisfied that the applicant has substantiated any claim that fob deposits are not now being held by the Body Corporate. As such the applicant has not discharged his onus of proving that the Body Corporate has not acted reasonably.

Treasurer’s accountability

[63] Next, the applicant criticises the conduct of the treasurer in authorising expenditure. Related to the first issue, he refers to invoices paid by the Body Corporate which he says the caretaker was obliged to pay for under the agreements. He argued that any invoices paid should indicate the contract clause that states the item is an exception to the caretaker’s obligations.

[64] The Committee replied that the treasurer does not authorised payment unless satisfied they are a Body Corporate expense, and that the invoices referred to are justifiable Body Corporate expenses, to the best of its knowledge. This objection is maintained in the application.

[65] The conciliation agreement agreed to review the invoices queried by the applicant, and to note the contractual exemption clause when caretaker invoices are paid in future. In its submission, the Committee details the nature of the particular invoices and explains why they do not consider those expenses were the responsibility of the caretaker. It reiterates that it has no reason to doubt the ability of the independent auditor. Collberry also asserts that the items were properly reimbursed as they were not duties under the caretaking agreement.

[66] As noted above, I am not satisfied the applicant has demonstrated that any invoices were paid for expenses that were clearly the responsibility of the caretaker. The applicant appears to rely on his personal opinion of the scope of duties under the contract, and does not substantiate his claims. Importantly, the applicant has not substantiated that it was unreasonable for the Committee to conclude that the expenses were properly a Body Corporate responsibility.

[67] The applicant claims that most disputed invoice still do not note the relevant exclusion clause, despite the Committee’s agreement. It may well be more transparent if the approval of an invoice to note the basis for the decision that the expense was a Body Corporate, rather than a caretaker, responsibility. However the applicant has not pointed to any basis that any such notation is required under the legislation or the caretaking agreement. Furthermore, he has not demonstrated that it is unreasonable for the Body Corporate to fail to make such a notation.

Disclosure to the new caretaker

[68] The applicant expressed a concern about what representations Collberry had made to the purchaser of the management rights. Given the issues he has raised, the applicant said the Body Corporate should investigate Collberry’s past financial dealings, and potentially withhold consent to the assignment until any necessary restitution was made. He further argued that the Body Corporate should make ‘fair and open’ disclosure to the prospective assignee.

[69] In response, the Committee said it was for the purchaser to carry out due diligence and any necessary checks. In his application, the applicant maintained that the Body Corporate should ensure full disclosure, in the interests of ‘future harmony’ with a new caretaker. Collberry noted the assignee had an accountant conduct an income verification investigation and searched the Body Corporate records. The Committee reiterates this is not a Body Corporate matter.

[70] The conciliation agreement noted that the issue regarding disclosure had been resolved.

[71] The Body Corporate should seek to establish a good working relationship with an incoming caretaker, and so open and honest communication is desirable. However the responsibility for due diligence rests with the purchaser. The applicant has presented no evidence that the Body Corporate withheld information or otherwise acted unreasonably.

Legal advice

[72] Finally, the applicant proposed that the Body Corporate give his report to its solicitors to consider in regard to the assignment of the management rights. The Committee confirmed that it had engaged solicitors and would give them a copy of the applicant’s letter and the response.

[73] In his application the applicant then discussed the assignment that was sought in July 2014 and his requests for copies of the deed of assignment. The body corporate manager responded that there was no deed at that time because the Committee were awaiting information and had not yet considered the assignment. The applicant speculates about what the deed might contain and what the Body Corporate could do.

[74] The conciliation agreement noted that the Committee would investigate the payment by Collberry of the legal fees associated with the assignment. In its submission the Committee confirmed that all previous and current legal fees had been paid by the caretaker.

[75] The applicant makes no further comment on this matter in its reply to submissions. The applicant has entirely failed to identify any statutory or contractual breach in regard to this matter, and gives no basis to suggest that the Body Corporate has failed to act reasonably.

Conclusion

[76] I accept that the applicant may genuinely have concerns about the performance of and enforcement of the agreements. There may be questions about some particular issues regarding, and in hindsight it may have been desirable for the Committee to have investigated some issues earlier and further, or to handle some questions differently. However that is not a basis for an order to be made.

[77] The applicant bears the onus of proving that the Body Corporate acted unreasonably in regard to the performance of and enforcement of the agreements, rather than simply raising questions and requiring the Body Corporate to prove the contrary. The applicant claims that he has presented clear evidence of wrongdoing, and the Body Corporate has ignored this. However I am not satisfied that the claim of evidence is made out. Notwithstanding the volume of material submitted, I do not consider the applicant has clearly demonstrated that the agreements were not complied with, or that there was a reasonable basis for the Committee to believe that the agreements were not complied with.

[78] In the circumstances I find no basis to make the orders sought. It follows that I have dismissed the application.

[1] Admiralty Towers [2014] QBCCMCmr 305

[2] Section 276 of the Act

[3] Section 284(1) of the Act

[4] See sections 227, 228, 276 and Schedule 5 of the Act

[5] Conciliation file reference 0782-2014

[6] Section 243 of the Act

[7] See sections 246 and 244 of the Act respectively

[8] Section 248 of the Act

[9] The investigative powers of an adjudicator are set out in section 271 of the Act

[10] Whitfield and Anor v Varden Point Apartments [2012] QCAT 543

[11] Section 94(2) of the Act

[12] Section 100(5) of the Act

[13] Cwealth Bank of Australia v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1997] FCA 1311; (1997) 150 ALR 1 pp34, 38.

[14] Ainsworth & Ors v Albrecht & Anor [2014] QCATA 294

[15] Ibid at paras 84-85

[16] Section 238(1)(b) of the Act

[17] Section 131 of the Standard Module

[18] Section 131(1)(a) to (e) of the Standard Module

[19] Sections 151-153 of the Standard Module

[20] Section 147(8) of the Standard Module

[21] Section 202-205 of the Standard Module

[22] Section 318 of the Act