Matthews v Body Corporate CTS 10524

[2012] QCATA 82

CITATION: Matthews v Body Corporate CTS 10524 [2012] QCATA 82

PARTIES:	Trevor Matthews (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Body Corporate CTS 10524 (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL347-11

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Hon James Thomas AM QC, Member

DELIVERED ON: 18 May 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The appeal is dismissed.
The order of the Adjudicator is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

Determination by adjudicator – Appeal – No question of law or legal error shown

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, s 289(2)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is an appeal by a registered lot owner against an Adjudicator’s order in favour of a body corporate.

1. A person aggrieved by such an order may appeal to this Tribunal, but only on a question of law.[1]

[1]        Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, s 289(2).

1. Mr Matthews will be referred to as the appellant, and the Body Corporate as the respondent.

1. The appellant alleged that the committee of the Body Corporate had acted improperly and without authority in spending money on various projects.  The respondent claimed that the spending was within lawful limits and within power, and that it was authorised by the lot owners at the 2011 Annual General Meeting.

1. The complaints, and the relief the appellant sought from the Adjudicator, were wide ranging.  The complaints were mainly concerned with various acts of the committee and body corporate in respect of maintenance and works in the foyer area and elsewhere.  The relief claimed included orders that the new stairs, balustrades and bricking be removed and that the cost be paid for by the committee and those who approved the expenditure; various declarations including that committee members breached the code of conduct; and other orders directing the body corporate to act in a certain manner.

1. The Adjudicator received material from all parties and written submissions from both appellant and respondent.  The appellant was given the opportunity, and took it, to respond to the respondent’s submissions.  In the result the Adjudicator rejected the appellant’s allegations of impropriety and found that the respondent and the committee had acted lawfully and with authority.

1. The “application for leave to appeal or appeal” does not contain specific grounds, and the various submissions filed by the appellant do not articulate the question or questions of law which are said to arise or the respect in which the Adjudicator is said to have made legal errors.  In his submissions the appellant raises some points which allege legal error, but again they are lacking in particularity.  They include–

(a)   That the Adjudicator erred in law in handing down a decision in favour of the respondent;

(b)   That the Adjudicator failed to apply and/or misconstrued and/or misapplied the provisions of the BCCM Act and the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2008 (Qld) (“standard module”);

(c)   That the Adjudicator failed to issue an order based on the body of facts and evidence submitted by the appellants; and

(d)   That the Adjudicator failed to observe the rules of natural justice.

1. Essentially the applicant’s complaint about the Adjudicator’s order is that the Adjudicator refused his application for relief.  However the fact that a party loses the case and disagrees with the result does not mean that an error of law has occurred.  The above grounds are expressed in generalities and do not actually identify any particular error of law that has been made.

1. For example the appellant has not identified the manner in which it is claimed that the Adjudicator failed to apply the BCCM Act and the Standard Module.  However the Adjudicator appears to have correctly identified sections 151-153 of the Standard Module as applying to the issues in dispute.[2]  No error is apparent.

[2]            See paragraphs 23-40 of the written reasons of the Adjudicator.

1. No error of law can be seen in the findings of fact or the manner and process by which they were made.  There was evidence upon which the Adjudicator could reach the stated conclusions and they are not plainly wrong.

1. There is no evidence that the Adjudicator failed to observe the requirements of natural justice or extend a proper opportunity to the appellant to present his case.  It is possible that the “natural justice” to which the appellant refers in his own perception of injustice in losing his case.  If so, this misapprehends the concept of natural justice as administered by the courts.

1. Extensive submissions have been received concerning particular issues.  All of these matters were raised and were fully considered by the Adjudicator.  In the absence of any logical argument addressing any particular finding and explaining why it was not open to be made, there is no point that can usefully be discussed.  The fact that the appellant disagrees with particular findings, or that others may have come to a different conclusion, is not a matter raising any ground of error of law which this Tribunal can consider. 

1. In all the circumstances the appeal is devoid of legal merit and it must be dismissed.

1. I order accordingly.