Eureka Group Holdings Limited v Body Corporate for Westminster House Meadowbrook CTS 15051

[2010] QCAT 631

CITATION: Eureka Group Holdings Limited  v Body Corporate for Westminster House Meadowbrook CTS 15051 [2010] QCAT 631

PARTIES:	Eureka Group Holdings Limited (Applicant)
v
Body Corporate for Westminster House Meadowbrook CTS 15051 (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:            OCL181-10              

MATTER TYPE: Other Civil

HEARING DATE:   On the papers

HEARD AT:   Brisbane

DECISION OF: Hon James Thomas, Judicial Member

DELIVERED ON:   8 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:   Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:  The application is refused.

CATCHWORDS :  Interim injunction

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

REASONS FOR DECISION AMENDED

1. This is a dispute between a manager and a body corporate. The applicant is the manager Eureka Group Holdings Limited.

1. The principal application was filed on 7 December 2010. The present application is for an interim injunction which the applicant has requested to be determined on the papers. So far as I can tell the relevant papers were not served on the respondent until today 8 December 2010.

1. The applicant seeks an order restraining the body corporate until trial or until earlier order from considering a motion to terminate the management agreement dated 21 December 2000 according to which the applicant was appointed as manager of the property where such motion depends upon a notice entitled ‘Remedial Action Notice’ and purportedly issued by the body corporate on 17 September 2010.

1. The basis of the application is that the ‘Remedial Action Notice’ issued by the body corporate on 17 September is inadequate, and that under the management contract there are no subsisting grounds for termination. The material includes correspondence between the parties after that date containing allegations and counter allegations.

1. Both parties seem to have proper arguments to present, and it is impossible to determine the merits on the available material.

1. The body corporate committee has foreshadowed a resolution to terminate the management agreement which is to be considered at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) called for tomorrow.

1. The urgency of today’s application and the alleged justification for dealing with it ex parte are the result of the applicants own delay in failing to seek such relief sooner.

1. I fail to see sufficient reason to make a peremptory order restraining the body corporate from exercising such rights and it may have.

1. If the applicant’s submissions are correct, the resolution, if passed, will in the end be of no binding effect against the applicant. The applicant will in due course have its legal rights confirmed after a hearing on the merits or after proceedings before an adjudicator.

1. If on the other hand, there is valid reason for termination there is no good reason why the body corporate should be enjoined from proceeding to enforce its rights.

1. The circumstances are not suitable for the grant of a peremptory interim injunction.

1. Order: The application is refused.