
Can a body corporate refuse renovations based on appearance?
Can a body corporate refuse renovations based on appearance? Learn when appearance is a valid reason and what can help your renovation application.
Living in a body corporate scheme means sharing space with people you didn’t choose as neighbours. Most of the time that works just fine. But occasionally, a pattern of behaviour from one resident can make life genuinely unpleasant for others. When that happens, what can the body corporate do?
A recent adjudicator’s decision offers a useful look at how conduct by-laws work in practice, what the threshold for a breach actually is, and what kinds of orders a body corporate can obtain when someone’s behaviour consistently falls below what the community has a right to expect.
In Oasis [2026] QBCCMCmr 178, the body corporate for a Queensland scheme applied for orders against an occupier following a series of incidents over more than a year.
The scheme’s body corporate manager described a pattern of conduct that included: the occupier calling him “rude and disrespectful” when he walked through an area she was mopping; calling him “arsehole” at least three times during a discussion about a water leak; speaking to him in an aggressive and threatening tone and accusing him of staring at her; and shouting abusive language while he was walking past her lot on common property.
The occupier and her family disputed parts of the account, though she acknowledged some of the incidents. The body corporate brought the application seeking conduct orders and a structured communication protocol to govern future interactions between the occupier and the body corporate, its agents, and other residents.
The adjudicator made conduct orders against the occupier, but the reasoning is worth understanding carefully, because it shows that not every frustrating interaction between neighbours will cross the legal line.
The adjudicator noted, for example, that calling someone “rude and disrespectful” during a disagreement about walking through a mopped area was “within the normal range of things that one person might say to another” in that kind of dispute. On its own, that would not be enough to breach a by-law. The threshold for what counts as an “annoyance” under a conduct by-law is an objective one, not just whether any individual felt annoyed.
What mattered here was the pattern. Repeated use of abusive and threatening language toward the body corporate’s representative, across multiple separate incidents, over an extended period, was enough to establish that the occupier’s conduct was unreasonable and in breach of the scheme’s by-laws.
The orders the adjudicator made require the occupier to: not use threatening or intimidating language directed at any owner, occupier, committee member, or body corporate representative; not behave in a manner likely to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of others; ensure her communications are reasonable, courteous, and not threatening, intimidating, defamatory, or abusive; and follow a structured communication protocol when dealing with the body corporate.
If you are a lot owner or occupier experiencing persistent abusive or threatening behaviour from another resident, the most important thing you can do is document it. Keep a simple written log of incidents as they happen: the date, what was said or done, and who was present. If the body corporate manager or another resident witnessed an incident, make a note of that too. This kind of contemporaneous record is exactly what adjudicators rely on when assessing whether conduct by-laws have been breached.
It is also worth keeping perspective. Body corporate by-laws are not designed to resolve every interpersonal conflict or silence every rude comment. An isolated unpleasant exchange, even a heated one, is unlikely to reach the threshold needed for a formal order. What the law is looking for is a pattern of conduct that is objectively unreasonable and that interferes with others’ right to peaceful enjoyment.
For committee members, this decision is a reminder that the body corporate does have real tools to address persistent nuisance behaviour, including conduct orders that set clear rules for how a resident must communicate with the community, and structured communication protocols that channel future interactions through formal written channels. These are not punitive measures so much as practical ones that help everyone get on with their lives.
If a resident’s behaviour is escalating or causing distress to others in the scheme, the committee can consider making a formal application to the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management. The process exists precisely for situations like this one.
If your scheme is dealing with persistent nuisance behaviour or a resident whose conduct is affecting others, BCsystems can help you understand what options are available and how the dispute resolution process works. Contact BCsystems and we will make sure the right people on your committee are informed and can take appropriate steps.
The Oasis decision is an encouraging one for communities where behaviour has become a problem. It confirms that committees have effective tools to protect their residents, and that adjudicators will use those tools when the evidence supports it. A respectful community is something everyone in a scheme has a right to, and the law backs that up.
SOURCE: Oasis [2026] QBCCMCmr 178 (9 June 2026)
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2026/178.html

Can a body corporate refuse renovations based on appearance? Learn when appearance is a valid reason and what can help your renovation application.

Who can approve significant body corporate spending? Learn how the committee spending limit works, when owners must vote and when two quotes are needed.