Ainsworth v Body Corporate for Viridian Noosa Residences CTS 34034

Ainsworth, a unit owner, appealed a decision of the Adjudicator in relation to a dispute with the Body Corporate for Viridian Noosa Residences, the body corporate managing the residential property. Ainsworth had requested documents from the Body Corporate Manager, which were not provided within the stipulated time. Ainsworth alleged that the emails she sent to the Body Corporate Manager were forwarded to a third party, which was denied by the Body Corporate Manager. The dispute was referred to adjudication. Ainsworth sought leave to file further evidence of actual emails with a "forwarded" notation, which was refused. Ainsworth appealed on the basis that the Adjudicator failed to investigate and that the Adjudicator’s failure to find the respondent in breach of s 205 of the BCCM Act was based on an error of law.

The court considered whether the Adjudicator's failure to investigate amounted to a proper ground for further investigation and whether the Adjudicator’s finding that the prescribed fee had not been paid was an error of law. The court found that the Adjudicator had considered all relevant evidence, including Ainsworth's assertion that the emails had been forwarded, and had made a finding that the prescribed fee had not been paid. The court held that the Adjudicator's decision was not based on an error of law and that the Adjudicator had properly considered the evidence before them.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Adjudicator was upheld. The court found that the Adjudicator had not erred in law and that there was no proper ground for further investigation. The court held that the Adjudicator had considered all relevant evidence and had made a finding that the prescribed fee had not been paid, which was a finding of fact. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Adjudicator was upheld.