CASE STUDIES
The roller door the belonged to everyone: A lesson in shared responsibility.
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.
The “thank you” payment that needed a proper contract
This case study looks at a 2026 adjudication involving a Queensland body corporate that had approved recurring “thank you” payments to a committee member for ongoing maintenance and caretaking work. Although the payments were described as ex gratia gifts, the adjudicator considered that the arrangement may, in substance, have been an ongoing service contractor engagement that required a formal written agreement and proper approval process. The decision highlights that regular payments for ongoing work cannot necessarily be treated as informal gifts simply because they are labelled that way. Body corporates should review these arrangements carefully, formalise them where required and ensure alternative motions dealing with the same issue are grouped correctly on the general meeting agenda.
Before you cut down the trees. Why irreversible decisions deserve extra care.
This case study looks at a 2026 adjudication involving a body corporate’s proposal to remove mature trees near a deteriorating boundary wall. Although an arborist recommended removing the trees, the evidence identified several other causes of the wall’s condition and did not establish that the trees were the primary problem. The adjudicator temporarily stopped the removal because it was irreversible and could be delayed while the body corporate developed a complete plan to repair the wall. The decision highlights the importance of considering the full evidence and wider solution before taking action that cannot be undone.
A dog named patches, and what committees can and can’t say no to
This case study looks at a 2026 adjudication involving a Queensland lot owner who applied to keep a second dog, a five-year-old Bull Arab named Patches. The committee refused the application based on concerns about the dog’s size, the owner’s ability to safely control two dogs and potential impacts on other residents and animals. However, the adjudicator found there was no evidence that Patches was aggressive or difficult to control, and the committee had not considered whether reasonable conditions could address its concerns. The decision highlights that committees need evidence-based reasons for refusing pet applications and must consider reasonable conditions before saying no.