Request a proposal

What Does ‘Acting Reasonably’ Mean for a Body Corporate Committee?

Published:

21 Sep 26

Modified:

21 Sep 26

“Act reasonably” is a phrase that appears throughout body corporate law. It isn’t a vague suggestion to be polite or fair. It’s a legal standard that applies to almost every decision a committee makes: enforcing by-laws, approving or refusing applications, spending scheme funds, engaging contractors, and resolving disputes between owners.

The difficulty is that the standard isn’t spelled out as a checklist. The legislation doesn’t say exactly what a committee must do when it tows a vehicle, refuses a pet application, or renews an insurance policy. Instead, it asks whether the decision, and the way it was reached, was reasonable in the circumstances.

That word carries real legal weight. Get it wrong, and a decision could be overturned, or expose the body corporate to compensation claims and costs.

This article explains what the duty to act reasonably actually requires, where it comes from, and how it plays out in the everyday decisions committees make.

Where the Duty Comes From?

Under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (BCCM Act), both the body corporate and its committee are required to act reasonably when exercising their powers and functions. This obligation runs through almost every area of body corporate decision-making: enforcing by-laws, approving or refusing applications, spending money, engaging contractors, and resolving disputes between owners.

Crucially, the Act doesn’t hand committees a fixed rulebook for every situation. Instead, “reasonableness” acts as a flexible legal test. One that adjudicators and courts apply after the fact to decide whether a decision should stand.

That flexibility is deliberate. Body corporate schemes vary enormously in size, budget, and circumstances, so a single rigid rule couldn’t sensibly cover every case. But it also means committees need to genuinely understand the test, rather than assume that following a process, or getting a majority vote, is automatically enough.

Reasonable Isn't the Same as Popular, Convenient, or Unanimous

One of the most common misunderstandings is treating “the committee voted for it” as the same thing as “it was reasonable.” It isn’t.

A decision can be:

Popular but unreasonable. For example, a committee that refuses every pet application because several owners dislike animals, without considering the legislative grounds for refusal.
Convenient but unreasonable. Towing a vehicle immediately because it’s the fastest fix, without first trying to identify the owner or considering whether a less drastic option was available.
Well-intentioned but unreasonable. Enforcing a by-law strictly and immediately against one owner while letting the same breach slide for others.

Reasonableness is assessed objectively. An adjudicator or tribunal will ask what a sensible, fair committee would have done in the circumstances, not simply whether the committee believed it was doing the right thing.

The Factors That Actually Get Weighed

While there’s no exhaustive checklist written into the legislation, the factors that consistently come up when reasonableness is tested include:

The seriousness of the issue. A minor, low-risk problem generally warrants a lighter response than one affecting safety or access.
The impact on others. Whose interests are affected, and how significantly?
Whether proper investigation occurred. Did the committee gather the relevant facts before deciding, or act on assumption?
Whether reasonable notice was given. Were affected owners or occupiers given a fair opportunity to respond before action was taken?
Whether a less drastic option existed. Could the outcome have been achieved with a lighter touch?
Consistency. Has the committee applied the same standard to similar situations in the past?
Proper process. Was the decision made through a validly authorised committee resolution, at the right level of authority, rather than informally?

No single factor is decisive on its own. What matters is whether, taken together, the decision reflects a genuine, fair, and proportionate response to the situation.

What Happens If a Committee Gets It Wrong

If a decision is found to be unreasonable, the consequences can include:

The decision being overturned by an adjudicator.
The body corporate being ordered to pay compensation or costs.
Damage to the committee’s credibility with owners, making future decisions harder to implement.
In more serious or repeated cases, formal intervention such as the appointment of an administrator.

Importantly, committee members generally aren’t personally liable simply for participating in a decision that turns out to be unreasonable, provided they acted honestly and in good faith, in what they believed to be the best interests of the scheme.

That protection is strongest when the committee can show its process was sound and that it gathered information, considered alternatives, and documented its reasoning.

A Practical Checklist Before Making a Committee Decision

Before finalising a significant decision, it’s worth committees asking themselves:

Have we gathered the relevant facts, rather than acting on assumption?
Have we considered the impact on the people affected?
Have we given fair notice or an opportunity to respond, where appropriate?
Is there a less drastic option we haven’t considered?
Have we applied this standard consistently with similar past decisions?
Is this being decided through the correct process and level of authority?
Could we clearly explain and justify this decision to an owner, or an adjudicator, if asked?

If the answer to that last question is “not really,” that’s usually a sign the decision needs more work before it’s made.

That protection is strongest when the committee can show its process was sound and that it gathered information, considered alternatives, and documented its reasoning.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

More To Explore

Committee advice