News

Disputes

MHL successfully acted on behalf of two lot owners to obtain further interim orders preventing a Body Corporate investing further funds in a company buying lots in its own scheme, where there was a concern that the Body Corporate was not acting reasonably and in the best interests of lot owners.

MHL successfully defended a Body Corporate against an application by an owner who sought to have several AGM motions declared invalid.

MHL successfully defended a Body Corporate against an interim application filed by an owner who sought the right to walk their pet through the foyer, instead of through the basement.

MHL successfully defended a Body Corporate against an interim application filed by a new owner who was contesting a grant of exclusive use for a garden which had been mistakenly omitted from the CMS for over 12 years.

MHL successfully defended a Body Corporate against an application filed by a previous owner who sought damages for a refusal of the insurer to cover a claim for rectification of water damage, and alleged that the Committee had acted unreasonably in not contesting the insurer’s decision.

MHL satisfactorily settled defamation proceedings on behalf of a lot owner.

---

Contracts

MHL was retained to urgently assist a Body Corporate where the Gold Coast City Council had served a Show Cause Notice due to the dangerous condition of the building. MHL drafted motions to authorise a contractor to perform the works and a special levy to pay for the works. MHL also liaised with the GCCC and the insurer.

MHL was retained by a PBC to draft a contract for the provision of a security system.

MHL was retained by a PBC to draft a contract for the provision of a communications system.

MHL was retained by a scheme to prepare contracts for painting and maintenance, which included extensive negotiations with the paint provider over inadequate terms and amending the project manager’s contract.

MHL was retained by a scheme to draft a new caretaking agreement following the expiration of the previous agreement.

Disputes

MHL successfully acted on behalf of two lot owners who discovered that a Body Corporate had spent about $1.5M buying properties in its scheme (which is prohibited except in irrelevant circumstances). The Committee sought to justify the purchases by saying the properties were not bought by the Body Corporate, but via a company where the sole director and shareholder was the Chair. An urgent interim Order was obtained to prevent the practice continuing.

MHL successfully defended a Principal Body Corporate against a subsidiary Body Corporate’s application to compel a Principal Body Corporate to take responsibility for a path which was not on the Principal Body Corporate’s common property. The Commissioner’s Office agreed that the Principal Body Corporate did not have a legal interest or responsibility for any part of the path not on its common property, and the path was not an asset of the Principal Body Corporate.

MHL successfully defended a Body Corporate against a lot owner’s application to overturn the Body Corporate’s Chair’s decision to several motions as being out of order at its annual general meeting. The Commissioner’s Office dismissed the lot owner’s application as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived and without substance and ordered that the owner reimburse the Body Corporate for its costs in defending the application.

MHL successfully defended a Body Corporate against a lot owner’s application which sought urgent interim Orders to prevent the commencement of urgent remedial structural works authorised at a general meeting.

MHL successfully acted on behalf of a Body Corporate that needed ongoing access to 3 lots pursuant to s.163 Notices to enable the installation of a Mast Climber to transport materials to the roof where urgent remedial structural works were required.

---

Contracts

MHL was retained to urgently assist a Body Corporate where a contractor had left the site in a dangerous condition. MHL drafted motions to terminate the existing contacts and appoint a new contractor and to raise a special levy, as well as drafting the contract with the new builder.

MHL was retained to draft access and repair works contracts with 2 lots that were affected by leaks, and to draft the contract with the builder to perform the works to the lots and to common property structural defects.

MHL was retained to review a major painting contract for common property, plus ancillary contracts for over 30 lots.

MHL was retained to review a roof replacement works contract including the installation of Height Safety Anchors.

MHL was retained by a Body Corporate to negotiate ground anchor and crane licences in respect of an adjacent development.

---

Seminars

Peter Hunt attended the annual National Strata Community Australia conference.

Cases

• MHL successfully represented a Body Corporate which sought an order for a lot owner to remove an awning structure within 30 days which:
  – was not approved by the Body Corporate (as it failed to comply with the Body Corporate’s conditions of approval); and
  – encroached on the common property.
  The Adjudicator further ordered that the Body Corporate may remove the structure and recover the costs of doing so from the owner as a debt, if the owner fails to do it himself within 30 days.
• MHL successfully defended a Body Corporate against the owners of a lot who alleged that the Body Corporate had failed to provide details about the long-term tenants residing in the Scheme.
• MHL successfully defended a Body Corporate against an unfair dismissal application by a former employee. The Fair Work Commission agreed with the Body Corporate’s position that the former employee was not entitled to make an application for unfair dismissal in the circumstances, and dismissed the application.
• MHL represented a Body Corporate and its Chair in the Human Rights Commission against allegations of discrimination concerning a disabled parking. At the conciliation the Complainant was persuaded to discontinue the case against the Body Corporate and its Chair.
• MHL represented a Body Corporate Manager in QCAT regarding alleged breaches of the Anti-Discrimination Act which was first dealt with in the Human Rights Commission. The matter was successfully concluded at the QCAT conciliation.

Seminars

Peter Hunt was part of a panel discussion about by-law enforcement at the 2021 annual conference of the Australian College of Strata Lawyers.

Peter Hunt was part of a panel discussion on layered schemes at the Qld Strata Community Association annual conference.

Disputes

• MHL represented a Body Corporate client which obtained the desired result at a Conciliation in the Commissioner’s Office, which was for the removal of a fence from common property.
• MHL was successful in obtaining interim orders preventing the implementation of a motion to be considered at an upcoming extraordinary general meeting where the implementation of the relevant motion would have been detrimental to MHL’s client.
• MHL successfully defended a Body Corporate client against an owner’s application for orders that a motion which was carried at the AGM was invalid and should have been ruled out of order. In this case, the relevant motion related to the engagement of the Body Corporate Manager.
• MHL successfully defended a Body Corporate against an owner’s application. The adjudicator agreed with the Body Corporate’s position that customers of the adjacent marina have no rights to use the common property recreational facilities, even if the owner of the marina is also a lot owner in the scheme.
• MHL successfully represented a Body Corporate client in obtaining orders that:
  – a motion for an extension of the caretaking agreement considered at the AGM was invalid due to an administrative error not requiring the motion to be considered by secret ballot; and
  – a further motion proposing to extend the caretaking agreement can be considered in the same financial year, as a result of the previous motion being declared invalid.
• MHL successfully defended a Body Corporate client in QCATA against an appeal filed by an owner appealing an order of an adjudicator. As a result of the appeal being dismissed, the Body Corporate can now register a new Community Management Statement to incorporate the exclusive use car parking and storage allocations which were removed without the required approval by a previous Community Management Statement registered in 2004
• MHL successfully defended a Body Corporate client against an application for final orders made by a lot owner to prevent the implementation of EGM resolutions approving the settlement of long running litigation and raising the settlement funds by a special levy. The application was dismissed on the basis that it was misconceived and without substance. The applicant was ordered to pay $2,000 to the Body Corporate in partial compensation for its costs in defending the application.
• MHL successfully defended a Body Corporate client against an application made by a lot owner seeking final orders regarding the enforcement of the parking by-laws against a specified occupier and the proposed marking of specified parking bays as visitor car parking.

Miscellaneous

MHL represents numerous Bodies Corporate every year when management rights are transferred. Recently we acted in a transaction involving 5 Bodies Corporate and another with 4 Bodies Corporate.

We assisted a Body Corporate with negotiations in respect of a building consultant’s contract and also in respect of a contract with the contractor for a major building project.

Vale Jeremy Brown

In August our greatly esteemed friend and colleague, Jeremy Brown, passed away.

It is profoundly sad to lose such a fine young man and talented lawyer. Jeremy was greatly loved by everyone at Mathews Hunt Legal and by his many clients. He will always be remembered for the high quality of his work and his dedication to our clients, but most importantly, for his gentle laid-back style, his great love of nature and his wonderful sense of humour.

1. MHL drafted a series of complicated inter-related motions relating to significant rectification works required by a Body Corporate that involved the raising of two special levies. These motions were subsequently passed at an EGM.

2. MHL advised on a complex contractual matter for one of the Gold Coast’s premier Body Corporate buildings in relation to early stage rectification works. The matter included negotiating favourable settlement terms with the other party and its insurer, and advising on the contracts to engage the relevant contractors so that the body corporate is appropriately protected.

3. MHL successfully defended a Body Corporate against an owner’s application for interim orders to prevent the implementation of a resolution at an annual general meeting to engage a Body Corporate Manager.

4. MHL successfully defended a Body Corporate against an application for interim orders made by a lot owner to prevent the implementation of EGM resolutions approving the settlement of long running litigation and raising the settlement funds by a special levy.

5. MHL prepared submissions for a Body Corporate in support of an owner’s application for interim orders to prevent the implementation of motions submitted by another owner for its sole benefit and to the detriment of all other owners. The Commissioner’s Office granted the requested interim orders.

6. MHL successfully defended an application seeking interim orders to stop MHL’s client from proceeding with significant renovation works to its lot which had been approved at the recent AGM. In this case, the relevant works were already underway (and significant funds had been spent) in reliance on the AGM motions and a subsequent contract.

1. MHL’s Body Corporate client won a Commissioner’s office adjudication application requiring the owners of a lot to remove window tinting that had been installed without Body Corporate approval. In this case, the opposition to the window tinting related to the visual impact that the tinting had on the scheme’s appearance.

2. MHL’s Body Corporate client won a Commissioner’s office adjudication application in which an owner sought to have a motion seeking approval for renovation works deemed to have been passed after the owners refused to pass it. In this case, the opposition to the renovation works related to the uncertainty as to the extent of the works and required use of common property airspace.

3. MHL’s Body Corporate won a Commissioner’s office adjudication application against the owners of a lot for orders that the Body Corporate’s decision to refuse consent to a motion at a general meeting was unreasonable. In this case, the motion related to:

• retrospective approval for significant works (including a sizeable rooftop structure) undertaken to the owners’ lot, which also encroached onto the common property; and
• a proposed licence in respect of the areas which were subject to the encroachment.

4. MHL attended the annual conference of Strata Community Association – Qld branch.

5. MHL attended the annual conference of the Australian College of Strata Lawyers.

MHL attended a meeting with the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management for Legal Practitioners who practice extensively in Body Corporate law.

MHL successfully represented a Body Corporate in an application to the Commissioner’s office for an order that the Body Corporate never validly revoked the exclusive use car parking allocations when a community management statement was registered in 2004 without those exclusive use car parking allocations.

MHL successfully defended a Body Corporate against an owner’s application for interim orders following an annual general meeting. The owner’s application for interim orders was dismissed.

1. MHL successfully defended the Body Corporate in an application to have:

• the AGM declared invalid for non-compliance with the required 21 days’ notice; and
• a chairperson’s decision to rule a motion out of order reversed.

2. MHL drafted submissions in an application for a Body Corporate Manager. The Adjudicator stated that the submissions were ‘certainly focussed, lucid and of assistance.’

3. MHL attended Griffith University’s National Strata Conference.

4. An adjudicator in the Commissioner’s office validated a complex motion drafted by MHL designed to settle an longstanding dispute with the caretaker which involved: termination of the current caretaking and letting agreement; a settlement amount being paid to the caretaker; entering into a new caretaking and letting agreement; and the raising of a special levy.

July 2019

1. MHL’s Body Corporate client won a Commissioner’s office application where an owner alleged that a general meeting was not validly called.
2. MHL prepared a Body Corporate’s QBCC complaint against a developer in relation to defective building work, and represented the Body Corporate through that process. A direction was obtained for the developer to rectify certain defects.
3. MHL congratulates Jessica Stanley on her appointment as a lawyer. Jessica had previously spent a year with us as a para-legal.

June 2019

MHL’s Body Corporate client won a Commissioner’s office application to have a budget deemed to have been approved after owners continually failed to pass a budget. The lack of a budget meant that vital repairs and maintenance were not being undertaken.