When something on a lot looks untidy or out of place, it is natural for a committee to want to act quickly. But a recent decision is a helpful reminder that enforcing a by-law only works if the by-law you are relying on actually says what you think it says.
In Harbour Village Mansions [2026] QBCCMCmr 327, a body corporate became concerned about several shipping containers and building materials stored on a vacant lot next door to an active construction site. The vacant lot’s owner had allowed the neighbouring owners to use the space while they carried out renovations. The body corporate issued notices alleging the arrangement breached no fewer than six separate by-laws, and eventually applied to a referee for orders requiring the containers to be removed and the lot restored to a clear, vacant condition.
The referee went through each by-law the body corporate had relied on, one at a time, and compared the actual wording against what was happening on the ground. The results were not what the body corporate expected. A by-law requiring approval for “structural alterations” and changes to the “external appearance of the dwelling” did not apply, because there was no dwelling on the vacant lot at all. A by-law about signs and painting was aimed at dwellings and common property, not an empty block. A by-law prohibiting “outbuildings” and “temporary buildings” did not catch shipping containers simply sitting on the ground, unfixed to anything, because the by-law’s own definition of “building” required a fixed structure. Even the by-law dealing specifically with the maintenance of vacant lots, which the body corporate leaned on heavily, turned out not to prohibit storing items on a vacant lot at all, only to require the owner to fix genuine safety or maintenance problems within a set timeframe once notified.
The referee was sympathetic to the body corporate’s underlying concern about the appearance of the lot and its impact on neighbours, but was not satisfied that any of the by-laws actually cited had been breached. The application was dismissed.
For committees, the practical lesson is straightforward but easy to overlook in the moment: before a by-law notice goes out, read the exact wording of the by-law being relied on, not just its heading or the general idea behind it. Ask whether the by-law actually covers what is happening, or whether it has been drafted with a different situation in mind, such as alterations to a dwelling rather than the use of an empty lot. Where there is genuine doubt, it is worth getting the wording checked before a notice is issued, since an incorrect notice can undermine a body corporate’s credibility and cost money if it is challenged.
For lot owners who receive a by-law contravention notice that seems off, it is entirely reasonable to ask the body corporate to identify precisely which by-law applies and how, in its own words, the situation falls within it. A notice that simply lists several by-law numbers without explaining how each one applies is worth querying.
Enforcement action only works when it is built on solid ground. BCsystems can help committees check that a proposed notice is properly matched to the by-law being relied on before it is sent, so any genuine concern about appearance, safety or amenity is addressed in a way that will actually hold up.
There is nothing wrong with a committee wanting to keep a scheme looking its best. The trick, as this case shows, is matching the concern to the right tool. A little care with the wording upfront saves a great deal of frustration later, for everyone involved.
“Act reasonably” is a phrase that appears throughout body corporate law. 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.
A contravention notice is the formal step a body corporate takes before it can pursue further enforcement action against an owner or occupier over an alleged by-law breach. Under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), it’s a legal prerequisite, not a warning letter, and the requirements around what it must contain and who it must be given to are specific.