Pead v Chambers and Anor (No.2)

Link copied
Case Copied 50 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND


ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Pead v Chambers & Anor (No.2) [2021] QCATA 3

PARTIES: JILL PEAD

(applicant)

v

SANDRA CHAMBERS

(first respondent)

THE BODY CORPORATE FOR OUTRIGGER SUITES CTS 32195

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL199-18

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

BCCM0215-18

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

6 January 2021

HEARING DATES:

18 December 2020 and further written submissions 22 and 23 December 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Roney QC

ORDERS:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES– where s 289(2) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) allows a person aggrieved by an Adjudicator’s order to appeal on a question of law to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) – what is error of law.

REAL PROPERTY – STRATA AND RELATED TITLES – MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL – BODY CORPORATE: POWERS, DUTIES AND LIABILITIES – OTHER CASES – body corporate expenditure – where committee resolved to pay legal fees of committee members to defend proceedings under the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 (Qld) - purposes for which administrative fund and sinking fund may be applied –
section 137 and section 146 Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2008 (Qld)

BODY CORPORATE COMMITTEES- POWERS - whether committee resolutions to pay or reimburse legal defence costs of the three committee members the subject of proceedings under the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 (Qld), and confirming that resolution subject to certain amendments, were void under section 42(1)(f) of the Accommodation Module on the basis that they were decisions to pay remuneration, allowances or expenses to a member of the committee - restricted issues -whether section 43 of the Accommodation Module applied such that it permitted those decisions to be made by the Committee.

STATUTES – SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION – CONSTRUCTION – PARTICULAR WORDS – pay remuneration , allowances or expenses

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), s 162, s 289, s 290
Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2008 (Qld), s 19,
s 42(1)(f), s 43, s 137, s 146, s 161
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 146

Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 (Qld)

Bell v Commissioner of Taxation [2012] FCA 1042
Federal Commission of Taxation v Trail Brothers Steel & Plastics Pty Ltd (2010) 186 FCR 410
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Al-Miahi (2001) 65 ALD 141; [2001] FCA 744
Tisdall v Webber (2011) 193 FCR 260
Van Deurse & Anor v Q1 Management Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] QCATA 113
O’Donnell & Anor v Body Corporate for Magic Mountain Apartments [2020] QCATA 153

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

First Respondent:

Self-represented

Second Respondent:

Self-represented

APPEARANCES:  This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. This is an appeal from a decision made by an Adjudicator appointed by the BCCM…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pead v Chambers and Anor (No.2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] QCATA 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved Pead, the appellant, against Chambers and another respondent. The case centred on an appeal against an order made by an Adjudicator under section 289(2) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld). The appellant contested the Adjudicator's decision to allow the respondents to use funds from the administrative and sinking funds to pay legal fees incurred by the body corporate committee members in defending proceedings brought against them under the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 (Qld). The primary issue for the court was to determine whether the Adjudicator had erred in law by permitting the use of these funds for legal fees.

The court was tasked with examining the statutory framework and the circumstances under which the administrative and sinking funds could be applied. The court considered the statutory definitions and purposes of these funds as outlined in the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld). It examined whether the Adjudicator's decision aligned with the legislative intent and whether there was any error of law in permitting the use of these funds to cover the legal fees. The court also evaluated whether the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to order the payment of legal fees and whether the decision was within the scope of the statutory provisions.

After reviewing the statutory provisions and the Adjudicator's decision, the court found that the Adjudicator had not erred in law. The court determined that the Adjudicator had correctly interpreted the relevant sections of the Act and that the decision to allow the use of funds for legal fees was within the Adjudicator's jurisdiction. The court concluded that there was no basis for allowing an appeal on the question of law. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the Adjudicator's decision was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.