Body Corporate for Metro Quays CTS 28461 v Three Islands Pty Ltd

In this appeal, the Body Corporate for Metro Quays CTS 28461 (appellant) contests the decision of the adjudicator that the respondent, Three Islands Pty Ltd (respondent), is not responsible for maintaining the roof of a multistorey building located in Townsville. The building comprises a layered arrangement of community titles schemes, with the respondent as the principal scheme and the appellant as one of the subsidiary schemes. The dispute centres on the interpretation of the obligations under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) and the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020, specifically regarding the maintenance of roofing structures providing protection.

The legal issues before the court were whether the respondent, as the principal scheme, had any obligation to maintain the roof of the building, which is part of the appellant’s scheme land, and whether the provisions of the Accommodation Module concerning the maintenance of roofing structures apply to the principal scheme in a layered arrangement. The appellant argued that the adjudicator erred in concluding that the obligations under the Accommodation Module do not extend to the principal scheme.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions, noting that Section 170(2)(b) of the Accommodation Module imposes an obligation on the body corporate to maintain roofing structures providing protection in a structurally sound condition. The appellant contended that a subsidiary scheme in a layered arrangement should be considered a lot created under a building format plan of subdivision, thereby engaging Section 170(2). However, the court found that a subsidiary scheme is not synonymous with a lot as defined in the Act, and therefore, the obligations under Section 170(2)(b) do not apply to the principal scheme in the context of a layered arrangement. The court concluded that the obligations between a lot owner and a body corporate in a layered scheme pertain only to the individual lot owner within a subsidiary scheme and the subsidiary body corporate, not the principal body corporate.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the adjudicator's decision that the respondent is not responsible for maintaining the roof of the building. The court's reasoning emphasised the need to interpret the statutory provisions harmoniously and in light of the legislative intent, which does not extend the principal scheme's maintenance obligations to include roofing structures in subsidiary schemes.