CASE STUDIES
Give proper notice: Why seven days for a committee meeting isn’t just a formality.
This case study examines a 2026 adjudication involving a body corporate committee meeting convened with only six days’ notice, one day short of the required seven-day period. A subsidiary body corporate also argued that the agenda did not accurately describe a motion concerning the scope and cost of the scheme’s caretaking arrangements. Although the adjudicator found that both the notice period and agenda wording were irregular, the meeting and its decisions were not invalidated because the applicant could not show that the errors caused any practical unfairness or affected its ability to participate. The case highlights that a minor, one-off procedural breach may not overturn a committee decision, but committees should still provide the full required notice and clearly describe what will be decided.
When a special resolution isn’t enough: Changing exclusive use by-laws
This case study examines a 2026 adjudication involving a body corporate’s decision to replace its by-laws, including changes to existing exclusive use by-laws covering car parks and courtyards. Although the new by-laws were approved by special resolution, two lot owners challenged changes that affected what owners could do within their exclusive use areas. The adjudicator formed a preliminary view that the changes went beyond simply updating the wording and could alter existing exclusive use rights, raising a serious question about whether a resolution without dissent was required. An interim order prevented the body corporate from registering the new by-laws while the matter was being resolved. The case highlights that while many by-law changes can be approved by special resolution, changes affecting existing exclusive use rights may require the higher voting threshold of a resolution without dissent.
Before you send that by-law notice, read the actual words
This case study examines a 2026 adjudication involving a lot owner’s request to install internal plantation shutters in a high-rise community titles scheme. The committee refused the request based on concerns about the building’s appearance, but did not properly assess how visible the shutters would be from outside the seventh-floor unit or provide evidence supporting its decision. The adjudicator found that the refusal relied on general aesthetic concerns rather than a genuine assessment of the specific application and could not be retrospectively justified by specifications or an architectural report obtained later. The decision confirms that committees may consider external appearance when assessing improvement requests, but their decisions must be reasonable, supported by evidence and based on the by-laws and information available at the time.
Internal Shutters, External Appearance: What a Recent Case Teaches Us About Assessing Improvement Requests
This case study examines a 2026 adjudication involving a lot owner’s request to install internal plantation shutters in a high-rise community titles scheme. The committee refused the request based on concerns about the building’s appearance, but did not properly assess how visible the shutters would be from outside the seventh-floor unit or provide evidence supporting its decision. The adjudicator found that the refusal relied on general aesthetic concerns rather than a genuine assessment of the specific application and could not be retrospectively justified by specifications or an architectural report obtained later. The decision confirms that committees may consider external appearance when assessing improvement requests, but their decisions must be reasonable, supported by evidence and based on the by-laws and information available at the time.
Details matter: Writing committee motions that will actually stand up.
This case study examines a 2026 adjudication involving committee motions for interim caretaking services after a scheme’s caretaking and letting agreement expired. The committee appointed the former caretaker through a vote outside a committee meeting, authorised one committee member to give directions and allowed the caretaker to arrange contractors. A lot owner challenged the motions because they did not clearly state the caretaker’s duties, rate, appointment period or spending limits, or define the authority of the individual committee member. The adjudicator made an interim order pausing all three motions while the dispute was resolved. The decision highlights the importance of clearly defining the scope, duration, cost and decision-making authority in committee motions, particularly where contractors or caretaking services are being engaged.
Fixing the Roof, Not Just the Leak: Lessons on Maintenance Delays and Access Rights
This case study examines a 2026 adjudication involving prolonged rooftop waterproofing and maintenance issues at a community titles scheme. After the body corporate repeatedly chose temporary repairs over replacing a deteriorated waterproof membrane, a lot owner sought orders requiring permanent action. The adjudicator found that the body corporate had failed to properly maintain the membrane and ordered it to be replaced within three months, along with repairs to drainage and glass balustrade seals. The decision also clarified responsibility for tree root damage and a cracked rooftop wall, based on whether the affected property formed part of the lot or common property. It confirms that body corporates cannot indefinitely delay necessary permanent repairs, even where owners have voted against them, and that lot owners must provide access for authorised works once reasonable written notice has been given.
When an owner raises concerns about the caretaker: Lessons from a recent case.
This case study examines a 2026 adjudication involving complaints by two lot owners about a caretaker’s performance at a 54-lot scheme. After the committee declined their request for an independent performance audit, the owners sought orders requiring the concerns to be formally assessed and temporarily preventing an extension of the caretaking agreement. The adjudicator found that committees are not automatically required to commission an audit when a complaint is made; the key question is whether the committee responds reasonably, taking into account the nature of the concerns, previous complaints and the time needed for proper consideration. The interim order was refused because delaying the deed would not affect the AGM vote and the proposed extension would not begin until 2046. The decision highlights the importance of clearly documenting how complaints are considered and confirms that owners may submit motions for a performance audit or remedial action notice if they want formal action to be considered at a general meeting.
Big repair projects need clear rules: What a recent case tells us about committee authority
This case study examines a 2026 adjudication involving a multi-year capital works program at a 17-lot scheme. A lot owner raised concerns that several motions could give the committee ongoing authority over spending, procurement, borrowing and funding decisions that should ordinarily be made by owners at a general meeting. While the adjudicator did not make final findings at the interim stage, an order was made preventing the committee from acting on the motions in any way that was inconsistent with the legislation. The decision highlights the importance of wording capital works motions carefully so committees have practical flexibility to manage lengthy repair projects without exceeding their authority, and shows that targeted amendments may be more appropriate than invalidating otherwise useful resolutions entirely.
The roof is leaking and the body corporate won’t fix it. What then?
This case study examines a 2026 adjudication involving a roller door installed across two neighbouring garages. Although the committee initially viewed the access issue as a private dispute between owners, the adjudicator found that the door was partly attached to and supported by common property, making it a body corporate responsibility. Rather than ordering its removal, the adjudicator directed the body corporate to provide the affected owner with a key and remote so she could access her storage area. The decision highlights that structures involving common property cannot necessarily be treated as private matters and that body corporates should consider practical, proportionate solutions while determining whether an improvement should be formally approved, altered or removed.