Body Corporate for Lakeview Manor v Beasley

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Body Corporate for Lakeview Manor v Beasley [2025] QCATA 67

PARTIES:

BODY CORPORATE FOR LAKEVIEW MANOR CTS 10368

(applicant/appellant)

v

CHRISTOPHER BEASLEY 

(respondent)

SARAH BEASLEY

(RESPONDENT)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL230-24

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

BCCM Order 1107-2023

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

27 June 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Aughterson

Member Kent

ORDERS:

1.     The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL  PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – OTHER CASES – body corporate and community management – where adjudicator ordered appellant to repair termite damage and reinstate garage door lock – whether denial of procedural fairness – whether no evidence to support findings – whether failure to take account of relevant consideration – whether misinterpretation of legislation

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), s 149B, s 281, s 289
Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation2020 (Qld), s 180

Land Titles Act 1994 (Qld), s 10

Lobban v Minister for Justice [2016] FCAFC 109
University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2)(1985) 60 ALR 68

Whitecrests by the Sea [2003] QBCCMCmr 21

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1. This is an appeal from a decision of an adjudicator pursuant to s 289 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (‘BCCM Act’).[1] By s 289(2) of the BCCM Act, any appeal is confined to a question of law.

   [1]As to the powers of the Tribunal on appeal, see 294 of the BCCM Act.

2. The questions before the adjudicator were, first, whether the appellant was responsible for the termite damage to the roof and stud walls of Lot 5, owned by the respondents, and second, whether it was the responsibility of the appellant to reinstate the missing lock from the garage door of Lot 5.

3. It was evident that the termite damage had been subject to repairs in 2012, but the attempts at repair did not meet Australian Standards. In particular, it remained that the structural capacity of the trusses and roof valley beams and the internal timber stud walls were compromised. There is no suggestion on appeal that the affected area is not common property. Rather, the focus is on the question of who is responsible, given the appellant’s position that the damage was caused by flying termites that gained entry by the wrongful removal of a common property fly screen on a Lot 5 window.  As to the garage door lock, it was submitted that this was on the inside of the garage door and as such was the responsibility of the respondents.

4. The Adjudicator held that in a building format plan subdivision the body corporate must maintain the common property roof in a good and structurally sound condition and that the damage arose from the appellant’s failure…