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 146Peace 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
This is an appeal from a decision made by an Adjudicator appointed by the BCCM…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] QCATA 3
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.