Large capital works projects, things like major building repairs that run over several years, can be tricky to set up properly at a general meeting. Owners want to give their committee enough flexibility to keep the project moving without having to call a special meeting every time a quote changes or a schedule shifts. But the law still requires certain decisions, like spending, borrowing and procurement, to be made by owners themselves in most cases, not just handed over to the committee.
A recent case from Mariner Point, a 17-lot scheme, looked at exactly this tension. It’s a useful read for any scheme running (or planning) a multi-year repair program, because it shows how easy it is for well-intentioned motions to accidentally stray into territory that belongs to owners, not the committee, and what can be done about it early, before any real problem arises.
Mariner Point was partway through a large, expensive program of building repairs, guided by a Five-Year Capital Works Plan. At an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on 30 April 2026, owners passed three motions designed to give the committee room to manage the project over its life. One let the committee re-sequence the timing of works based on professional advice, so higher-risk defects could be tackled sooner. Another authorised the committee to get further quotes and implement works in the plan over multiple years, even acknowledging prices might change due to inflation or timing, without needing further owner approval as long as the scope wasn’t materially expanded. The third authorised the committee to obtain quotes, finalise contracts within budget, and implement the “approved governance model”.
A lot owner supported the repair works themselves but was concerned that these motions, read together, could effectively hand the committee ongoing authority over spending, procurement, borrowing and funding decisions that the legislation reserves for owners at general meeting. She raised similar concerns about two alternative motions proposed for the upcoming AGM, a “full program” and a “staged program” option, both of which also authorised the committee to raise levies, adopt budgets and engage contractors.
She applied for final orders addressing these concerns and, in the meantime, asked for an interim order (a temporary order made quickly to prevent harm before a dispute is fully resolved) stopping the committee from acting on any of the motions in a way inconsistent with the legislation, pending a full decision. This case is Mariner Point [2026] QBCCMCmr 289.
The committee’s position was that none of the motions were meant to override the law. It said future decisions would still need to comply with all the usual statutory requirements for spending, quotes, borrowing and owner approval when the time actually came, and that the motions were simply a practical way to get owners aligned behind an agreed strategy and funding approach for a project too big and too long to nail down in precise detail years in advance.
The adjudicator agreed it wasn’t appropriate to make final findings at this early, interim stage. But the adjudicator was satisfied the owner’s application had enough basis to proceed, since the motions could arguably be read as letting the committee exceed its proper authority over time. At the same time, the adjudicator took some comfort from the committee’s explanation of its genuine intent, and noted the committee itself had proposed a sensible fix: simply be restrained from making any expenditure, procurement, borrowing or funding decision under these motions that would be inconsistent with the Body Corporate and Community Management Act or the Standard Module Regulation. The adjudicator adopted this as the interim order.
The adjudicator flagged that if parts of the resolutions turn out to be unlawful, invalidating them entirely might not be the fairest outcome. Something more surgical, like modifying or severing just the problem parts, could work better, and encouraged both sides to negotiate an agreed form of final orders. The adjudicator also noted that some of the owner’s other requests, like requiring extensive independent professional information before any future vote, were unlikely to succeed, since the law only requires fair and reasonable notice of what’s actually proposed, not exhaustive briefing material.
If you’re a lot owner and something about a motion’s wording concerns you, particularly around ongoing spending or borrowing powers, it’s worth reading the actual words of the motion carefully before the meeting, not just the summary in the agenda. If you have questions, you can email your body corporate committee directly, or contact BCsystems and we’ll pass your query on to the committee ahead of the vote.
If you’re on the committee, this case is a good reminder to keep multi-year capital works motions focused on genuine practical flexibility (like re-sequencing works based on professional advice) rather than open-ended authority over spending, procurement or borrowing decisions that the law reserves for owners. Being clear and specific about what the committee can and can’t do without a further vote will save everyone time and reduce the risk of a dispute later.
For both owners and committees, this case also shows that raising a concern early, before any money is actually spent or contract signed, is far more useful than waiting until after the fact. An interim order like the one made here is designed to hold things steady while the details get worked out, not to stop a good repair project from going ahead.
Getting the wording right on multi-year capital works motions is genuinely difficult, you want enough flexibility for a long project to work in practice, but you also need to stay within the legislation’s requirements for owner approval of spending, procurement and borrowing. BCsystems can help committees plan and word these motions so they achieve both goals, and we have forms available to make preparing motions for your next general meeting easier.
Big repair projects are a positive thing for a scheme’s long-term health, and cases like this one simply help clarify where the line sits between committee flexibility and owner decision-making, so future motions can be written with more confidence on all sides.
“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.