Robley v Body Corporate for the Dalgety (Apartments)

Case

[2013] QCAT 584


CITATION: Robley v Body Corporate for The Dalgety (Apartments) [2013] QCAT 584
PARTIES: Stephen Mark Robley and Barbara Joan Robley (Applicants)
v
Body Corporate for The Dalgety (Apartments) CTS 41448
(Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER: OCL070-13
MATTER TYPE: Other civil disputes matters
HEARING DATE: On the papers
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: James White, Member
DELIVERED ON: 15 November 2013
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:

1.    That the contribution schedule lot entitlements for The Dalgety Apartments CTS 41448 be adjusted such that the entitlements be as set out in the attached table.

2.    There are no orders as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

Body Corporate and Community Management - adjustment of Contribution Schedule Lot Entitlements

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 ss 48(6), 49(4)

Fisher & Ors v Body Corporate for Centrepoint Community Title Scheme 7779 [2004] QCA 214 Mango Property Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for West End Entral Commercial CTS 33391 [2011] QCAT 156

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. The Dalgety Apartments CTS 41448 consists of 223 lots (6 commercial lots and 117 residential lots) together with car parking areas. It is a 21 level building situated at 84 – 106 Denham Street, Townsville.

  2. On 2 October 2013 Mr & Mrs Robley lodged an application for the adjustment of the contribution schedule lot entitlement (CSLE) of the 223 lots in the scheme. The application is brought under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (BCCMA).

  3. The Respondent Body Corporate with the consent of the Applicants obtained a Valuation Report dated 30 September 2013 from Opteon (North Qld) Pty Ltd (Opteon) prepared by AD Dickinson, to determine whether their should be a revision of the Lot Entitlement in accordance with the BCCMA. The valuation date was 21 May 2013 (Opteon Report).

Legislation

  1. The governing principle under the BCCMA is set out in ss 48 and 49 that ‘respective lot entitlements should be equal, except to the extent to which it is just and equitable in the circumstances for them not to be equal’.[1]

    [1]BCCMA s 48(6).

  2. In determining what would be just and equitable circumstances to a change to the lot entitlements the Tribunal takes into account:

    (a)how the community titles scheme is structured; and

    (b)the nature, features and characteristics of the lots included in the scheme.[2]

    [2]Ibid s 49(4).

  3. The starting point is that the entitlements should be equal; a departure from the principle is allowable where it is just or fair to recognise inequality; and the allocation of lot entitlements is to be made on the basis of the impact that individual apartments make upon the cost of operating a community titles scheme; only to the extent that they affect the cost of operating the community titles scheme.[3]

    [3]Fisher & Ors v Body Corporate for Centrepoint Community Title Scheme 7779 [2004] QCA 214; Mango Property Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for West End Entral Commercial CTS 33391 [2011] QCAT 156.

Consideration

  1. Both the Applicants and the Respondent Body Corporate agree with the Opteon Report

  2. All that remains is whether this Tribunal applying the BCCMA also agrees with the Opteon Report.

  3. The Tribunal has considered the Opteon Report and the submissions filed by the parties. It takes the view that it is just and equitable to order that the contribution lot entitlements for the scheme be adjusted to reflect the lot entitlements proposed by the Opteon Report. In making this decision the Tribunal takes into account how the community titles scheme is structured, the nature, features and characteristics of the building and the purpose for which the lots are and have been used. All of these matters were properly addressed in the Opteon Report together with the valuation assessment.

  4. The proposed changes to the lot entitlements are set out in the following table, which will be annexed to the formal order.


Lot Number

Entitlement

Lot Number

Entitlement

101

134

604

265

102

156

605

290

103

164

606

290

104

133

607

315

105

173

701

330

106

97.5

702

365

201

315

703

270

202

245

704

270

203

245

705

295

204

285

706

295

301

325

707

325

302

250

801

340

303

250

802

375

304

290

803

275

401

285

804

345

402

335

805

465

403

255

806

350

404

255

901

360

405

280

902

390

406

280

903

285

407

295

904

360

501

295

905

480

502

345

906

365

503

260

1001

370

504

260

1002

340

505

285

1003

295

506

285

1004

370

507

305

1005

490

601

305

1006

375

602

370

1101

380

603

265

1102

410

1103

305

1604

430

1104

380

1605

435

1105

500

1605

550

1106

385

1701

440

1201

390

1702

470

1202

420

1703

365

1203

315

1704

440

1204

390

1705

560

1205

510

1706

445

1206

395

1801

450

1301

400

1802

480

1302

430

1803

375

1303

325

1804

450

1304

400

1805

570

1305

520

1806

455

1306

405

1901

475

1401

410

1902

505

1402

440

1903

385

1403

335

1904

475

1404

410

1905

580

1405

530

1906

480

1406

415

2001

670

1501

420

2002

880

1502

450

2003

885

1503

345

2004

720

1504

420

2101

680

1505

540

2102

890

1506

425

2103

895

1601

430

2104

730

1602

460

2201

1400

1603

355

TOTAL

49,172.5


Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0