Breeze Mr Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Bay Village Community Title Scheme 33127

The case of Breeze Mr Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Bay Village Community Title Scheme 33127 involved a dispute between the applicant, Breeze Mr Pty Ltd, and the respondent, the body corporate for Bay Village Community Title Scheme 33127. The applicant had entered into a management agreement with the respondent, which could be terminated under certain conditions. The respondent purported to terminate the agreement without an ordinary resolution in a general meeting, and the applicant sought a declaration in the Supreme Court that the termination was of no force and effect. The respondent argued that the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, pursuant to the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to determine the application and whether the purported termination was valid under the Body Corporate and Community Management (Commercial Module) Regulation 2020 (Qld). The court also had to determine whether the purported termination constituted a "dispute" under the exclusivity of dispute resolution provisions of the Act. The court needed to assess whether the termination was a decision on a "restricted issue" under the Regulation, and whether the respondent's actions were in compliance with the statutory requirements.

The court found that the respondent's purported termination of the management agreement was not valid because it was not carried out in accordance with the statutory requirements. The court held that the termination was a "restricted issue" under the Regulation, which required an ordinary resolution in a general meeting. Since the termination did not comply with these requirements, it was of no force and effect. The court also concluded that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to determine the application and that the matter did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of QCAT. The respondent's argument that the dispute was not complex and therefore required resolution by QCAT was rejected.

The court declared that the termination by the respondent on 8 April 2021 of the management agreement dated 17 October 2005 and the written notice of termination of that agreement dated 20 April 2021 were of no force and effect. The respondent was ordered to pay 80% of the applicant's indemnity costs of and incidental to the proceeding, such costs to be assessed.