Most committee meetings happen without a hitch. Someone circulates an agenda, a few members reply, a decision gets made, and everyone moves on. But a recent adjudicator’s decision is a timely reminder that the notice period and the agenda itself matter, and that getting them slightly wrong can leave a committee’s decisions open to challenge.
The dispute in the case Cova [2026] QBCCMCmr 329 arose in a layered scheme made up of a principal body corporate and four subsidiary bodies corporate. One of the subsidiaries became concerned that a committee meeting had been convened on just six days’ notice, one day short of the seven days required under the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020 (a piece of legislation that sets out detailed rules for how certain schemes run their meetings). The subsidiary also argued that the agenda circulated before the meeting did not accurately describe one of the motions to be decided, which concerned reviewing the scope and cost of the scheme’s caretaking arrangements.
The subsidiary asked the adjudicator to invalidate the meeting and the decisions made at it, partly because of the short notice and partly because of the vague description of the motion.
The adjudicator agreed there had been irregularities. The notice fell one day short of the statutory minimum, and the agenda did not accurately capture the substance of what was being decided. However, the adjudicator was not prepared to invalidate the meeting on that basis alone. Adjudicators are generally reluctant to unwind a body corporate’s decisions over a procedural slip unless the irregularity caused a real, demonstrable unfairness that cannot be fixed some other way, or unless the meeting was called on short notice in bad faith.
In this case, the subsidiary could not show that the missing day of notice actually changed anything or stopped it from properly weighing in. The adjudicator noted the legislation itself allows a committee to consider matters not listed on the agenda, so an imperfectly worded agenda item is not automatically fatal. The application to invalidate the meeting was dismissed, though the adjudicator was careful to note that a pattern of short notice, repeated over time, could well be treated differently.
For committee members preparing a meeting, this case is a useful nudge rather than a cause for alarm. Build in the full notice period required under your regulation module (generally five or seven days depending on the type of meeting), and treat that as a floor, not a target. When drafting an agenda item, describe what is actually being decided in plain terms, rather than a shorthand label that could mean several different things. If a motion involves changing an existing arrangement, such as a caretaking or maintenance contract, spell out what is changing and why.
For lot owners who feel a meeting was rushed or an agenda item was unclear, the lesson is slightly different. Raising the concern promptly, and explaining specifically how the short notice or vague wording affected your ability to participate, matters far more than simply pointing out the technical breach. A generalised complaint about process, without a concrete example of harm, is unlikely to succeed on its own.
Getting notice periods and agenda wording right is one of the more fiddly parts of running meetings, particularly in larger or layered schemes where several committees or bodies corporate are involved. BCsystems manages meeting notices and agendas for committees every day, and can help make sure your paperwork gives everyone the full and proper opportunity to participate, well before any dispute becomes necessary.
Most committees get their meeting processes right most of the time, and this decision shows that a minor, one-off slip is unlikely to unravel a decision on its own. Even so, it costs nothing to build in a little extra breathing room and a little extra clarity, and it can save a great deal of trouble down the track.
“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.