When a scheme suddenly loses its caretaker, committees understandably want to act fast to keep the property running smoothly. A recent decision shows just how important it is, even under time pressure, to spell out exactly what is being proposed, because a vague motion can end up doing more harm than good.
In Hillhaven [2026] QBCCMCmr 319, a 34-lot scheme’s caretaking and letting agreement had expired, and the committee moved quickly to arrange interim caretaking. Acting through a vote outside a committee meeting, the committee passed several motions: one appointing the former caretaker to provide interim caretaking services “until such time as the body corporate votes” on a permanent arrangement, another nominating a single committee member to “give directions” to that caretaker, and a third directing the caretaker to arrange various contractors for cleaning and pest-proofing work.
A concerned lot owner (who was also the committee’s own chairperson, acting in her capacity as an owner) applied to stop these motions being implemented, arguing they were too vague to be valid.
The adjudicator agreed there was a serious question to be answered, on several fronts. The motion appointing the interim caretaker did not state any hourly rate, scope of duties, or firm end date, making it impossible to tell whether the committee was even within its own spending authority to approve it. Appointing someone to provide caretaking services for a year or more generally requires the fuller process of an ordinary resolution at a general meeting, not just a committee decision, and a motion with no end date at all risked crossing that line without anyone quite noticing. The motion nominating a single committee member to “give directions” to the caretaker was similarly unclear about whether that person could make independent decisions on the committee’s behalf, something an individual committee member is not permitted to do alone. And the motion authorising the caretaker to arrange various contractors did not identify who those contractors were, what they would cost, or set any limit on spending.
An interim order was made pausing all three motions until the underlying dispute could be properly resolved, with the adjudicator noting that none of this stopped the committee from going back and passing new, clearer motions covering the same ground.
Before a motion goes to a vote, whether at a committee meeting or a general meeting, it is worth running through a short checklist: who exactly is being engaged, for how long, at what cost or rate, and what specific tasks are they authorised to carry out? If a motion proposes appointing someone to a role like caretaking for an extended or open-ended period, check whether that actually needs a full general meeting resolution rather than a committee decision. If a motion nominates an individual to liaise with a contractor, make clear whether that person is simply a point of contact or has decision-making authority, since only the committee as a whole can make binding decisions on the body corporate’s behalf.
Taking a little extra time to nail down these details before a vote is far quicker, in the end, than dealing with a challenge afterwards.
BCsystems regularly helps committees draft motions with the level of detail needed to hold up, particularly for time-pressured situations like arranging interim contractors, so a sensible short-term fix does not accidentally become a legal headache.
Acting quickly to keep a scheme running is exactly what a good committee should do. This decision simply shows that speed and precision are not in conflict: a clear, well-drafted motion can be put together just as fast as a vague one, and it will serve everyone far better.
“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.